Assessment of
First Generation
PerformanceBased
Seismic Design
Methods for
New Steel Buildings
Volume 1:
Special Moment
Frames
February 2015
Disclaimers
Certain commercial software, equipment, instruments, or materials may have been used in the preparation
of information contributing to this report. Identification in this report is not intended to imply
recommendation or endorsement by NIST, nor is it intended to imply that such software, equipment,
instruments, or materials are necessarily the best available for the purpose.
NIST policy is to use the International System of Units (metric units) in all its publications. In this report,
however, information is presented in U.S. Customary Units (inchpound), as this is the preferred system of
units in the U.S. earthquake engineering industry.
Preface
In June 2008, the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) sponsored a PerformanceBased Seismic Design (PBSD) workshop for leading practitioners and researchers from around the United
States to develop a comprehensive list of research needs to foster full development and implementation of
PBSD. From this workshop, the Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) reported a prioritized list of key
PBSD research and implementation needs in NIST GCR 099172: Research Required to Support Full
Implementation of PerformanceBased Seismic Design (NIST 2009a). The highest priority need identified
in this report was to benchmark current PBSD methodologies (e.g., ASCE/SEI 4106: Seismic
Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings (ASCE 2006)hereafter referred to as ASCE 41) with code procedures
for design of new buildings. Two observations from the report were that among workshop participants (1)
ASCE 41 procedures are perceived to be overly conservative and (2) existing PBSD methods are not
accepted by practitioners as providing a uniform level of confidence. A supporting reason for these two
observations was that no systematic effort had been undertaken to benchmark structural performance as
determined using ASCE 41 procedures, together with widely accepted procedures for designing new
buildings using ASCE/SEI 710: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE
2010)hereafter referred to as ASCE 7.
Work was initiated at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to support this priority
study under the Assessment of Design Methods in Existing PBSD Standards Project. This task was
conducted by the Earthquake Risk Reduction in Buildings and Infrastructure group, the research division
of the NEHRP Office at NIST. This research involves problemfocused studies in PBSD assessing the
applicability and accuracy of implementing firstgeneration PBSD analysis methods now used for
evaluating existing buildings in the performancebased design of new buildings. The current study focuses
on buildings with lateral systems utilizing structural steel frames. This project evaluates the results of the
studies and identifies changes to current model building codes and standards provisions that will encourage
more universal use of PBSD. The volume of data required to illustrate the results and conclusions
necessitated three separate reports, as follows:
iii
varying return periods, nonlinear dynamic analysis, structural behavior and design of building structures;
and provide peer review services. The review panel for this project was structured as follows:
NCJV
JonHeintz
Ayse Horta csu
Project Review Pa ne l
Wi ll iamHolmes,Chair
RobertHans on
Pete r Somers
Nicolas Luco
Robert Pekelnicky
MomentFramePanel
Thomas Sabol
Mi chael Engel hardt
Concentrica llyBraced
FramePanel
RafaelSabelli
Ste phenMa hi n
Ec centrically Brace d
FramePanel
Ja mes Mal ley
CharlesRoeder
Michael Engelhardt
The University of Texas at Austin
Dept. of Civil, Arch. and Environ. Eng.
301 East Dean Keeton St., Stop C1747
Austin, TX 78712
Robert Hanson
University of Michigan, Emeritus
5885 Dunabbey Loop
Dublin, Ohio 43017
Nicolas Luco
U.S. Geological Survey
Box 25046 DFC MS 966
Denver, Colorado 80225
Stephen Mahin
University of California, Berkeley
Dept. of Civil and Environ. Eng.
777 Davis Hall
Berkeley, California 94720
James Malley
Degenkolb Engineers
235 Montgomery St., Suite 500
San Francisco, California 94104
iv
Robert Pekelnicky
Degenkolb Engineers
235 Montgomery St., Suite 500
San Francisco, California 94104
Charles Roeder
University of Washington
Box 352700
Seattle, WA 98195
Rafael Sabelli
Walter P. Moore
595 Market St., Suite 2130
San Francisco, California 94105
Thomas Sabol
Englekirk Institutional
Peter Somers
Seattle, WA 98101
The authors gratefully acknowledge the members of the PRP for their input and guidance during this project
and in the preparation of report volumes 13. Further, the authors wish to thank Jon Heintz and Ayse
Hortacsu at Applied Technology Council for management of Task Order 12. Special thanks are also
extended to Jack Hayes (NEHRP Director), Steve McCabe (NEHRP Deputy Director), and Bob Pekelnicky
for reviewing the final NIST reports.
John L. Harris III
Research Structural Engineer
jay.harris@nist.gov
Matthew S. Speicher
Research Structural Engineer
matthew.speicher@nist.gov
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Engineering Laboratory
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Office
100 Bureau Dr., MS 8604
Gaithersburg, MD 20899
vi
Table of Contents
Preface
.............................................................................................................................................. iii
1.1
1.2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
3.1
3.1.3.1.1
vii
3.1.3.1.2
3.1.3.2.1
3.1.3.2.2
3.1.4.1.1
3.1.4.2.1
3.2
3.2.2.1.1
3.2.2.1.2
3.2.2.1.3
3.2.2.1.4
3.2.2.2.1
3.2.2.2.2
3.2.2.2.3
3.2.2.2.4
3.2.2.3.1
viii
3.2.2.3.2
3.2.2.3.3
3.2.2.3.4
3.2.3.1.1
3.2.3.1.2
3.2.3.1.3
3.2.3.1.4
3.2.3.2.1
3.2.3.2.2
3.2.3.2.3
3.2.3.2.4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
ix
A.1
A.2
A.3
A.4
A.5
A.6
B.1
B.1.2.2.1
B.1.2.2.2
B.1.2.2.3
B.2
B.1.2.3.1
B.1.2.3.2
B.1.2.3.3
B.3
B.4
B.4.1.2.1
B.4.1.2.2
B.4.1.2.3
B.4.1.3.1
B.4.1.3.2
B.4.1.3.3
Flexural Strength.......................................................B33
B.4.1.3.4
B.4.1.4.1
B.4.1.4.2
B.4.1.4.3
C.1
C.1.1.1.1
C.1.1.1.2
FR Connection ............................................................C2
C.1.1.2.1
Beam ...........................................................................C2
C.1.1.2.2
C.1.1.3.1
Beam ...........................................................................C3
C.1.1.3.2
C.1.1.4.1
Beam ...........................................................................C5
C.1.1.4.2
xi
C.2
xii
List of Tables
Table 11. Comparison of Seismic Hazard and Associated Performance for ASCE 7 and ASCE 41 ..... 14
Table 12. Performance Comparison between IBC and ASCE 41 (From IEBC Table 301.1.4.1) ....... 14
Table 24. Seismic Analysis and Design Parameters, EW ...................................................................... 28
Table 25. Seismic Analysis and Design Parameters, NS ....................................................................... 28
Table 311. Basic mfactors for Linear Procedures, SMF ...................................................................... 326
Table 312. Plastic Rotation Angles for Improved WUF and Column Hinge for a W18175 .............. 338
Table 313. NSP General Information, 4Story SMF (kip, inch) ........................................................... 353
Table 314. NSP Analysis Parameters, 4Story SMF BSE2 CP (kip, inch).......................................... 353
Table 315. NSP Analysis Parameters 4Story SMF BSE1 LS (kip, inch) ......................................... 353
Table 316. NSP General Information, 8Story SMF (kip, inch) ........................................................... 375
Table 317. NSP Analysis Parameters, 8Story SMF BSE2 CP (kip, inch).......................................... 375
Table 318. NSP Analysis Parameters 8Story SMF BSE1 LS (kip, inch) ......................................... 375
Table 319. NSP General Information, 16Story SMF (kip, inch) ....................................................... 3102
Table 320. NSP Analysis Parameters, 16Story SMF BSE2 CP (kip, inch)...................................... 3102
Table 321. NSP Analysis Parameters, 16Story SMF BSE1 LS (kip, inch) ...................................... 3102
Table 322. Performance Summary of FR Connections (BC) per Frame, Linear Procedures ............. 3118
Table 323. Performance Summary of Panel Zones (PZ) per Frame, Linear Procedures .................... 3119
Table 324. Performance Summary of Column Members (CM) per Frame, Linear Procedures ......... 3120
xiii
Table 325. BSO Performance Summary of Archetype Buildings, Linear Procedures ....................... 3121
Table 326. Summary of Base Shears, Linear Procedures (kips) ......................................................... 3122
Table 327. Performance Summary of FR Connections (BC) per Frame, Nonlinear Procedures ........ 3123
Table 328. Performance Summary of Panel Zones (PZ) per Frame, Nonlinear Procedures ............... 3124
Table 329. Performance Summary of Column Hinges (CH) per Frame, Nonlinear Procedures ........ 3125
Table 330. Performance Summary of Column Members (CM) per Frame, Nonlinear Procedures .... 3126
Table 331. BSO Performance Summary of Archetype Buildings, Nonlinear Procedures .................. 3126
Table A1. Ground Motion Records for EW Direction of MC4 ............................................................ A3
Table A2. Ground Motion Records for EW Direction of MC8 ............................................................ A6
Table A3. Ground Motion Records for EW Direction of MC16 .......................................................... A9
Table B4. Effect Seismic Weights and Story Gravity Forces, MC4 (kips)............................................ B3
Table B5. Effect Seismic Weights and Story Gravity Forces, MC8 (kips)............................................ B3
Table B6. Effect Seismic Weights and Story Gravity Forces, MC16 (kips).......................................... B4
Table B7. Seismic Strength Design Forces, EW MC4 ......................................................................... B4
Table B9. ASCE 7 Allowable Drift and Stability Verification, EW MC4 RSA .................................. B6
Table B10. ASCE 7 Allowable Drift and Stability Verification, EW MC4 ELF ................................. B7
Table B11. Seismic Strength Design Forces, EW MC8 ....................................................................... B7
Table B13. ASCE 7 Allowable Drift and Stability Verification, EW MC8 RSA ................................ B9
Table B14. ASCE 7 Allowable Drift and Stability Verification, EW MC8 ELF ................................. B9
Table B15. Summary of Seismic Strength Design Forces, EW MC16 .............................................. B10
Table B16. Summary of Seismic Drift Forces, EW MC16 ................................................................ B11
Table B17. ASCE 7 Allowable Drift and Stability Verification, EW MC16 RSA ............................ B12
Table B18. ASCE 7 Allowable Drift and Stability Verification, EW MC16 RSA ............................ B13
Table B19. Summary of Seismic Strength Design Forces, NS MC4 ................................................. B13
Table B21. ASCE 7 Allowable Drift and Stability Verification, NS MC4 RSA................................ B15
Table B22. ASCE 7 Allowable Drift and Stability Verification, NS MC4 ELF ................................ B15
Table B23. Summary of Seismic Strength Design Forces, NS MC8 ................................................. B16
xiv
Table B25. ASCE 7 Allowable Drift and Stability Verification, NS MC8 RSA.................................B18
Table B26. ASCE 7 Allowable Drift and Stability Verification, NS MC8 ELF .................................B18
Table B27. Summary of Seismic Strength Design Forces, NS MC16 ................................................B18
Table B29. ASCE 7 Allowable Drift and Stability Verification, NS MC16 RSA...............................B21
Table B30. ASCE 7 Allowable Drift and Stability Verification, NS MC16 ELF ...............................B21
Table B33. Vertical Irregularity Type 5 (a and b) Verification, ELF (kip, feet)...................................B23
Table B34. Vertical Irregularity Type 5 (a and b) Verification, RSA (kip, feet) ..................................B23
Table B36. Vertical Irregularity Type 1 (a and b) Verification (Using Exception 1) ...........................B24
Table B37. Vertical Irregularity Type 5 (a and b) Verification, ELF (kip, feet)...................................B25
Table B38. Vertical Irregularity Type 5 (a and b) Verification, RSA (kip, feet) ..................................B25
Table B39. AISC 360 Frame Stability (Effective Length Method), 4Story SMF ELF (kip, inch) ......B26
Table B40. AISC 360 Frame Stability (Effective Length Method), 4Story SMF RSA (kip, inch) .....B26
Table B41. AISC 360 Frame Stability (Effective Length Method), 8Story SMF ELF (kip, inch) ......B26
Table B42. AISC 360 Frame Stability (Effective Length Method), 8Story SMF RSA (kip, inch) .....B26
Table B43. AISC 360 Frame Stability (Effective Length Method), 16Story SMF ELF (kip, inch)....B27
Table B44. AISC 360 Frame Stability (Effective Length Method), 16Story SMF RSA (kip, inch) ...B27
xv
xvi
List of Figures
Figure 24. Typical Floor Framing Plan, MC4 and MC8 ......................................................................... 24
Figure 27. FR RBS BeamToColumn Connection Subassembly Model for Linear Analysis ............. 211
Figure 29. BracetoBeam / Column Connection Subassembly Model for Linear Analysis ................ 212
Figure 32. Generalized Component Backbone Curve (adopted from ASCE 41 Figure C21) ............... 39
Figure 34. PM Interaction on Section mfactor (inplane) and Member Instability (Primary Component)
................................................................................................................................................................. 323
Figure 35. Compactness Requirements as a Function of Axial Load Ratio, LS Acceptance Criteria .. 324
Figure 36. Acceptance Criteria as a Function of Axial Load Ratio and Section Compactness, LS
Figure 37. Frame Capacity Schematic (mfactor), LS and CP, 4Story SMF ELF ............................... 327
Figure 38. Frame Capacity Schematic (mfactor), LS and CP, 4Story SMF RSA .............................. 327
Figure 39. Frame Capacity Schematic (mfactor), LS and CP, 8Story SMF ELF ............................... 328
Figure 310. Frame Capacity Schematic (mfactor), LS and CP, 8Story SMF RSA ............................ 328
Figure 311. Frame Capacity Schematic (mfactor), LS and CP, 16Story SMF ELF ........................... 329
Figure 312. Frame Capacity Schematic (mfactor), LS and CP, 16Story SMF RSA .......................... 330
xvii
Figure 316. Inplane Flexural Hinge Yield Surface Model (Including ForceControlled Response) ... 336
Figure 317. Variation in Acceptance Criteria and Hinge Model for Axial Force ................................. 336
Figure 318. PM Interaction on Plastic Rotation, LS Acceptance Criteria (Primary Component) ....... 337
Figure 321. Frame Capacity Schematic (Inelastic), YD, LS, and CP, 4Story SMF ELF .................... 340
Figure 322. Frame Capacity Schematic (Inelastic), YD, LS, and CP, 4Story SMF RSA.................... 340
Figure 323. Frame Capacity Schematic (Inelastic), YD, LS, and CP, 8Story SMF ELF .................... 341
Figure 324. Frame Capacity Schematic (Inelastic), YD, LS, and CP, 8Story SMF RSA.................... 342
Figure 325. Frame Capacity Schematic (Inelastic), YD, LS, and CP, 16Story SMF ELF .................. 343
Figure 326. Frame Capacity Schematic (inelastic), YD, LS and CP, 16Story SMF RSA ................... 344
Figure 327. LSP Assessment Results, 4Story SMF ELF, BSE1 LS................................................... 346
Figure 328. LSP Assessment Results, 4Story SMF RSA, BSE1 LS .................................................. 347
Figure 329. LSP Assessment Results, Compression in Exterior Columns, 4Story SMF, BSE1 ........ 347
Figure 330. LSP Assessment Results, 4Story SMF ELF, BSE2 CP .................................................. 348
Figure 331. LSP Assessment Results, 4Story SMF RSA, BSE2 CP .................................................. 348
Figure 332. LSP Assessment Results, Compression in Exterior Columns, 4Story SMF, BSE2 ........ 349
Figure 333. LDP Assessment Results, 4Story SMF ELF, BSE1 LS .................................................. 350
Figure 334. LDP Assessment Results, 4Story SMF RSA, BSE1 LS ................................................. 350
Figure 335. LDP Assessment Results, Compression in Exterior Columns, 4Story SMF, BSE1 ....... 351
Figure 336. LDP Assessment Results, 4Story SMF ELF, BSE2 CP .................................................. 352
Figure 337. LDP Assessment Results, 4Story SMF RSA, BSE2 CP ................................................. 352
Figure 338. LDP Assessment Results, Compression in Exterior Columns, 4Story SMF, BSE2 ....... 352
Figure 341. 4Story SMF ELF Pushover Story Drift Ratios BSE2 ............................................... 355
Figure 342. 4Story SMF RSA Pushover Story Drift Ratios BSE2............................................... 355
Figure 343. Schematic of Flexural Actions in Columns, 4Story SMF (NSP and NDP)...................... 356
Figure 344. NSP Assessment Results, 4Story SMF ELF, BSE1 LS (+push to right) ........................ 357
Figure 345. NSP Assessment Results, 4Story SMF RSA, BSE1 LS (+push to right) ....................... 357
Figure 346. NSP Assessment Results, 4Story SMF ELF, BSE2 CP (+push to right) ........................ 357
Figure 347. NSP Assessment Results, 4Story SMF RSA, BSE2 CP (+push to right) ....................... 358
Figure 348. NDP Assessment Results, Beam Hinges, 4Story SMF ELF, BSE1 LS .......................... 359
xviii
Figure 349. NDP Assessment Results, Beam Hinges, 4Story SMF RSA, BSE1 LS ......................... 359
Figure 350. NDP Assessment Results, Beam Hinges, 4Story SMF ELF, BSE2 CP.......................... 360
Figure 351. NDP Assessment Results, Beam Hinges, 4Story SMF RSA, BSE2 CP ......................... 360
Figure 352. NDP Assessment Results, Column Hinges, 4Story SMF ELF, BSE2 CP ...................... 361
Figure 353. NDP Assessment Results, Column Hinges, 4Story SMF RSA, BSE2 CP ..................... 362
Figure 354. NDP Assessment Results, Column Hinges, 4Story SMF ELF, BSE2 Yield .................. 362
Figure 355. NDP Assessment Results, Column Hinges, 4Story SMF RSA, BSE2 Yield ................. 363
Figure 356. NDP Assessment Results, Column Members, 4Story SMF ELF, BSE2 CP .................. 363
Figure 357. NDP Assessment Results, Column Members, 4Story SMF RSA, BSE2 CP.................. 364
Figure 358. NDP Assessment Results, Panel Zones, 4Story SMF ELF, BSE2 CP............................ 365
Figure 359. NDP Assessment Results, Panel Zones, 4Story SMF RSA, BSE2 CP ........................... 365
Figure 360. LSP Assessment Results, 8Story SMF ELF, BSE1 LS................................................... 367
Figure 361. LSP Assessment Results, 8Story SMF RSA, BSE1 LS .................................................. 367
Figure 362. LSP Assessment Results, Compression in Exterior Columns, 8Story SMF, BSE1 ........ 368
Figure 363. LSP Assessment Results, 8Story SMF ELF, BSE2 CP .................................................. 369
Figure 364. LSP Assessment Results, 8Story SMF RSA, BSE2 CP .................................................. 369
Figure 365. LSP Assessment Results, Compression in Exterior Columns, 8Story SMF, BSE2 ........ 370
Figure 366. LDP Assessment Results, 8Story SMF ELF, BSE1 LS .................................................. 371
Figure 367. LDP Assessment Results, 8Story SMF RSA, BSE1 LS ................................................. 371
Figure 368. LDP Assessment Results, Compression in Exterior Columns, 8Story SMF, BSE1 ....... 372
Figure 369. LDP Assessment Results, 8Story SMF ELF, BSE2 CP .................................................. 373
Figure 370. LDP Assessment Results, 8Story SMF RSA, BSE2 CP ................................................. 373
Figure 371. LDP Assessment Results, Compression in Exterior Columns, 8Story SMF, BSE2 ....... 374
Figure 374. 8Story SMF ELF Pushover Story Drift Ratios BSE2 ............................................... 376
Figure 375. 8Story SMF RSA Pushover Story Drift Ratios BSE2............................................... 377
Figure 376. Story Shear Demand to Strength Comparison, ELF .......................................................... 378
Figure 377. Story Shear Demand to Strength Comparison, RSA ......................................................... 378
Figure 378. Schematic of Flexural Actions in Columns, 8Story SMF (NSP and NDP)...................... 379
Figure 379. NSP Assessment Results, 8Story SMF ELF, BSE1 LS (+push to right) ........................ 380
Figure 380. NSP Assessment Results, 8Story SMF RSA, BSE1 LS (+push to right) ....................... 380
Figure 381. NSP Assessment Results, 8Story SMF ELF, BSE2 CP (+push to right) ........................ 381
Figure 382. NSP Assessment Results, 8Story SMF RSA, BSE2 CP (+push to right) ....................... 381
Figure 383. NDP Assessment Results, Beam Hinges, 8Story SMF ELF, BSE1 LS .......................... 382
xix
Figure 384. NDP Assessment Results, Beam Hinges, 8Story SMF RSA, BSE1 LS ......................... 383
Figure 385. NDP Assessment Results, Beam Hinges, 8Story SMF ELF, BSE2 CP .......................... 383
Figure 386. NDP Assessment Results, Beam Hinges, 8Story SMF RSA, BSE2 CP ......................... 384
Figure 387. NDP Assessment Results, Column Hinges, 8Story SMF ELF, BSE2 CP ...................... 385
Figure 388. NDP Assessment Results, Column Hinges, 8Story SMF RSA, BSE2 CP ..................... 385
Figure 389. NDP Assessment Results, Column Hinges, 8Story SMF ELF, BSE2 Yield .................. 386
Figure 390. NDP Assessment Results, Column Hinges, 8Story SMF RSA, BSE2 Yield ................. 386
Figure 391. NDP Assessment Results, Column Members, 8Story SMF ELF, BSE2 ........................ 387
Figure 392. NDP Assessment Results, Column Members, 8Story SMF RSA, BSE2........................ 387
Figure 393. NDP Assessment Results, Panel Zones, 8Story SMF ELF, BSE2 CP ............................ 388
Figure 394. NDP Assessment Results, Panel Zones, 8Story SMF RSA, BSE2 CP ........................... 388
Figure 395. LSP Assessment Results, 16Story SMF ELF, BSE1 LS................................................. 390
Figure 396. LSP Assessment Results, 16Story SMF RSA, BSE1 LS ................................................ 391
Figure 397. LSP Assessment Results, Compression in Exterior Columns, 16Story SMF, BSE1 ...... 392
Figure 398. LSP Assessment Results, 16Story SMF ELF, BSE2 CP ................................................ 393
Figure 399. LSP Assessment Results, 16Story SMF RSA, BSE2 CP ................................................ 394
Figure 3100. LSP Assessment Results, Compression in Exterior Columns, 16Story SMF, BSE2 .... 395
Figure 3101. LDP Assessment Results, 16Story SMF ELF, BSE1 LS .............................................. 396
Figure 3102. LDP Assessment Results, 16Story SMF RSA, BSE1 LS ............................................. 397
Figure 3103. LDP Assessment Results, Compression in Exterior Columns, 16Story SMF, BSE1 ... 398
Figure 3104. LDP Assessment Results, 16Story SMF ELF, BSE2 CP .............................................. 399
Figure 3105. LDP Assessment Results, 16Story SMF RSA, BSE2 CP ........................................... 3100
Figure 3106. LDP Assessment Results, Compression in Exterior Columns, 16Story SMF, BSE2 . 3101
Figure 3109. 16Story SMF ELF Pushover Story Drift Ratios BSE2 ......................................... 3103
Figure 3110. 16Story SMF RSA Pushover Story Drift Ratios BSE2......................................... 3104
Figure 3111. Schematic of Flexural Actions in Columns, 16Story SMF (NSP and NDP)................ 3105
Figure 3112. NSP Assessment Results, 16Story SMF ELF, BSE1 LS (+push to right) .................. 3106
Figure 3113. NSP Assessment Results, 16Story SMF RSA, BSE1 LS (+push to right) ................. 3107
Figure 3114. NSP Assessment Results, 16Story SMF ELF, BSE2 CP (+push to right) .................. 3108
Figure 3115. NSP Assessment Results, 16Story SMF RSA, BSE2 CP (+push to right) ................. 3109
Figure 3116. NDP Assessment Results, Beam Hinges, 16Story SMF ELF, BSE1 LS .................... 3110
Figure 3117. NDP Assessment Results, Beam Hinges, 16Story SMF RSA, BSE1 LS ................... 3111
Figure 3118. NDP Assessment Results, Beam Hinges, 16Story SMF ELF, BSE2 CP .................... 3111
xx
Figure 3119. NDP Assessment Results, Beam Hinges, 16Story SMF RSA, BSE2 CP ................... 3112
Figure 3120. NDP Assessment Results, Column Hinges, 16Story SMF ELF, BSE2 CP ................ 3113
Figure 3121. NDP Assessment Results, Column Hinges, 16Story SMF RSA, BSE2 CP ............... 3113
Figure 3122. NDP Assessment Results, Column Hinges, 16Story SMF ELF, BSE2 Yield ............ 3114
Figure 3123. NDP Assessment Results, Column Hinges, 16Story SMF RSA, BSE2 Yield ........... 3114
Figure 3124. NDP Assessment Results, Column Members, 16Story SMF ELF, BSE2 CP ............ 3115
Figure 3125. NDP Assessment Results, Column Members, 16Story SMF RSA, BSE2 CP ............ 3115
Figure 3126. NDP Assessment Results, Panel Zones, 16Story SMF ELF, BSE2 CP...................... 3116
Figure 3127. NDP Assessment Results, Panel Zones, 16Story SMF RSA, BSE2 CP ..................... 3116
Figure A1. Acceleration Response Spectra: Original, Scaled, and Scaled Average Spectrum for EW
Figure A2. Acceleration Response Spectra: Original and Scaled for Each Selected Record for EW
Figure A3. Acceleration Response Spectra: Original, Scaled, and Scaled Average Spectrum for EW
Figure A4. Acceleration Response Spectra: Original and Scaled for Each Selected Record for EW
Figure A5. Acceleration Response Spectra: Original, Scaled, and Scaled Average Spectrum for EW
Figure A6. Acceleration Response Spectra: Original and Scaled for Each Selected Record for EW
Figure A7. 1994 Northridge Earthquake at Beverly Hills, Mulholland Drive Station, Comp. 009 ..... A12
Figure A8. 1994 Northridge Earthquake at Beverly Hills, Mulholland Drive Station, Comp. 279 ..... A12
Figure A9. 1994 Northridge Earthquake at Canyon Country WLC Station, Comp. 000..................... A13
Figure A10. 1994 Northridge Earthquake at Canyon Country WLC Station, Comp. 270................... A13
Figure A11. 1999 Duzce, Turkey Earthquake at Bolu Station, Comp. 000 ......................................... A14
Figure A12. 1999 Duzce, Turkey Earthquake at Bolu Station, Comp. 090 ......................................... A14
Figure A13. 1999 Hector Mine Earthquake at Hector Station, Comp. 000 ......................................... A15
Figure A14. 1999 Hector Mine Earthquake at Hector Station, Comp. 090 ......................................... A15
Figure A15. 1979 Imperial Valley Earthquake at Delta Station, Comp. 262....................................... A16
Figure A16. 1979 Imperial Valley Earthquake at Delta Station, Comp. 352....................................... A16
Figure A17. 1979 Imperial Valley Earthquake at El Centro Array Station #11, Comp. 140............... A17
Figure A18. 1979 Imperial Valley Earthquake at El Centro Array Station #11, Comp. 230............... A17
Figure A19. 1995 Kobe, Japan Earthquake at NishiAkashi Station, Comp. 000 ............................... A18
Figure A20. 1995 Kobe, Japan Earthquake at NishiAkashi Station, Comp. 090 ............................... A18
Figure A21. 1995 Kobe, Japan Earthquake at ShinOsaka Station, Comp. 000 .................................. A19
xxi
Figure A22. 1995 Kobe, Japan Earthquake at ShinOsaka Station, Comp. 090 .................................. A19
Figure A23. 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey Earthquake at Duzce Station, Comp. 180 .................................... A20
Figure A24. 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey Earthquake at Duzce Station, Comp. 270 .................................... A20
Figure A25. 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey Earthquake at Arcelik Station, Comp. 000................................... A21
Figure A26. 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey Earthquake at Arcelik Station, Comp. 090................................... A21
Figure A27. 1992 Landers Earthquake at Yermo Fire Station, Comp. 270 ......................................... A22
Figure A28. 1992 Landers Earthquake at Yermo Fire Station, Comp. 360 ......................................... A22
Figure A29. 1992 Landers Earthquake at Coolwater Station, Longitudinal Direction ........................ A23
Figure A30. 1992 Landers Earthquake at Coolwater Station, Transverse Direction ........................... A23
Figure A31. 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake at Capitola Station, Comp. 000 ....................................... A24
Figure A32. 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake at Capitola Station, Comp. 090 ....................................... A24
Figure A33. 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake at Gilroy Array Station #3, Comp. 000 ........................... A25
Figure A34. 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake at Gilroy Array Station #3, Comp. 090 ........................... A25
Figure A35. 1990 Manjil, Iran Earthquake at Abbar Station, Longitudinal Direction ........................ A26
Figure A36. 1990 Manjil, Iran Earthquake at Abbar Station, Transverse Direction............................ A26
Figure A37. 1987 Superstition Hills Earthquake at El Centro, Imperial County, Comp. 000 ............. A27
Figure A38. 1987 Superstition Hills Earthquake at El Centro, Imperial County, Comp. 090 ............. A27
Figure A39. 1987 Superstition Hills Earthquake at Poe Road, Comp. 270 ......................................... A28
Figure A40. 1987 Superstition Hills Earthquake at Poe Road, Comp. 360 ......................................... A28
Figure A41. 1992 Cape Mendocino Earthquake at Rio Dell Overpass, Comp. 270 ............................ A29
Figure A42. 1992 Cape Mendocino Earthquake at Rio Dell Overpass, Comp. 360 ............................ A29
Figure A43. 1999 ChiChi, Taiwan Earthquake at CHY101 Station, EW Component ...................... A30
Figure A44. 1999 ChiChi, Taiwan Earthquake at CHY101 Station, NS Component ....................... A30
Figure A45. 1999 ChiChi, Taiwan Earthquake at TCU045 Station, EW Component ...................... A31
Figure A46. 1999 ChiChi, Taiwan Earthquake at TCU045 Station, NS Component ....................... A31
Figure A47. 1971 San Fernando Earthquake at Los Angeles Hollywood Store Station, Comp. 090 .. A32
Figure A48. 1971 San Fernando Earthquake at Los Angeles Hollywood Store Station, Comp. 180 .. A32
Figure A49. 1976 Fruili, Italy Earthquake at Tolmezzo Station, Comp. 000 ...................................... A33
Figure A50. 1976 Fruili, Italy Earthquake at Tolmezzo Station, Comp. 270 ...................................... A33
Figure B1. Strength Design Lateral Forces and Story Shears................................................................ B5
Figure B2. Drift Design Lateral Forces and Story Shears ...................................................................... B5
Figure B3. Story Drift Ratios and Deflected Shape ............................................................................... B6
Figure B4. Strength Design Lateral Forces and Story Shears................................................................ B7
Figure B5. Drift Design Lateral Forces and Story Shears ...................................................................... B8
Figure B6. Story Drift Ratios and Deflected Shape ............................................................................... B9
xxii
Figure B7. Strength Design Lateral Forces and Story Shears ...............................................................B10
Figure B10. Strength Design Lateral Forces and Story Shears .............................................................B14
Figure B13. Strength Design Lateral Forces and Story Shears .............................................................B16
Figure B16. Strength Design Lateral Forces and Story Shears .............................................................B19
xxiii
xxiv
List of Abbreviations
AISC
ASCE
ASTM
ATC
BPL
BSE
BSO
BSSC
CBF
CP
Collapse Prevention
DC
DeformationControlled
DCR
EBF
EHL
ELF
EW
EastWest
FC
ForceControlled
FEMA
FR
Fully Restrained
GSA
GCR
Grant/Contract Report
HD
Highly Ductile
HSS
IBC
ICC
IEBC
IO
Immediate Occupancy
LC
Load Combination
LDP
LFRS
LRFD
LS
Life Safety
LSP
LTB
MC
Moment Curvature
Moderately Ductile
MR
Moment Rotation
MRSA
MWFRS
NDP
NEHRP
NIBS
NIST
NPL
NS
NorthSouth
NSP
PBS
PBSD
RBS
RHA
RSA
SCBF
SCWB
SDC
SDOF
SEAONC
SEI
SFRS
SMF
SPL
SRSS
W.P.
Work Point
xxvi
Executive Summary
This report presents the results of a study investigating the correlation between the seismic performance of
an ASCE 7 codecompliant building and its performance as quantified using ASCE 41 analysis procedures
and structural performance metrics. This investigation is performed by evaluating a suite of structural steel
buildings in a high seismicity region that are designed using ASCE 7 and evaluated using ASCE 41. The
basic question is whether the standards for designing new steel buildings and assessing existing steel
buildings provide consistent levels of performance. An additional outcome of this research is to advance
the stateofknowledge in PBSD and assessment of buildings using ASCE 41. Further, results provide the
technical background for provisions that target equivalent seismic performance between a new building and
an existing building that is required to meet the seismic performance objective of a new building.
This report presents the results of a structural seismic performance assessment using ASCE 41 procedures
and performance measures of buildings utilizing steel special moment frames (SMF) as the lateral forceresisting system (LFRS).
A suite of archetype buildings that incorporate SMFs along one principal direction of the buildings is
designed in accordance with ASCE 7. The suite consists of 4, 8, and 16story buildings designed using
both the Equivalent Lateral Force (ELF) Procedure and Modal Response Spectrum Analysis (RSA). Both
analysis procedures are used to provide a generally applicable range of LFRS strength within the selected
seismic intensity region. As such, an LFRS may include significant overstrength to resist nonseismic loads
or to satisfy other design criteria. A design space is created to investigate the effects of design methodology,
building height and other LFRSspecific geometric modifications on seismic performance. In reality, the
design space is infinitely large and many design choices made in this study can also have different
configurations to evaluate the variation in performance specific to a design choice.
The seismic performance assessment of the building suite is conducted using both linear and nonlinear
analysis procedures prescribed in ASCE 41:
For this study, the performance assessment targets the Basic Safety Objective (BSO) prescribed in ASCE
41. This objective includes the interrelated goals of Life Safety (LS) Building Performance Level (BPL) at
the Basic Safety Earthquake1 (BSE1) earthquake hazard level (EHL) and Collapse Prevention (CP) BPL
at the BSE2 EHL. This performance objective is chosen to align with the intended structural performance
objective of an ordinary building in ASCE 7, which is qualitatively defined here as life safety provided
by collapse prevention of the building, given a maximum considered earthquake (MCE) event.
xxvii
To evaluate seismic assessment criteria, each component of the SMFs is designated as a primary or
component in accordance with ASCE 41 2.2.5 (and ASCE 41 2.4.4.2). Similarly, quantitative
performance measures (i.e., acceptance criteria) for primary components are used for all assessment
procedures, although performance measures for secondary components are permitted by ASCE 41 for some
primary components. The consistent use of primary acceptance criteria keeps all components and associated
assessment results correlated among the assessment procedures for this study.
The goals of this research are as follows:
Assess new structural steel buildings utilizing SMFs designed per ASCE 7 requirements and, in
turn, evaluated using ASCE 41,
Develop a qualitative link between the performance implied in ASCE 7 in light of the performance
identified by ASCE 41 procedures and performance measures,
Provide guidance or technical support for improved or new provisions in ASCE 41 (and to a lesser
extent, ASCE 7),
Reduce uncertainty in firstgeneration PBSD procedures for performancebased seismic
assessment, and
Identify any inconsistencies, ambiguities, and confusing provisions in ASCE 41.
The primary conclusions of this research can be divided into two parts: General Observations and Specific
Observations about ASCE 41 analytical procedures.
A.
B.
The following significant observations and conclusions are based on the collective results obtained from
the assessment of the SMFs. More details about the specific items are in the relevant sections of the
assessment discussion in Chapter 3.
xxviii
Analytical results based on componentlevel performances indicate that new SMFs designed in
accordance with ASCE 7, and its referenced standards, have difficulty achieving the ASCE 41 BSO
for an existing building intended to be equivalent to a new building. This observation is driven by
the performance of the columns and beamtocolumn connections.
Assuming the archetype buildings meet the collapse performance objective of ASCE 7, the results
of the assessment procedures indicate that ASCE 41 is generally conservative for SMFs. ASCE 41
analysis would require retrofit or replacement of specific components of a codecompliant SFRS
to satisfy the CP BPL, given an MCE event. The results highlight that columns (i.e., beamcolumns)
with high axial and flexural demands and beamtocolumn connections with a reduced beam section
(RBS) have difficulty in satisfying the performance criteria in ASCE 41. Future research is needed
to couple the collapse performance objectives of the two standards, as well as other performance
objectives associated with a seismic hazard with a lower return period.
A significant number of columns, primarily at the exterior of the frames, did not satisfy the ASCE
41 acceptance criteria. These failures are in beamcolumns classified by analysis as force
controlled, which can be particularly problematic when the columns are located at the base of a
frame. The results for columns can be enhanced by more mechanistically consistent assessment
provisions and analytical modeling parameters for columns. Refinement of the relevant interaction
equations to evaluate specific failure mechanisms could assist by allowing what would be a forcecontrolled column to be classified as deformationcontrolled.
A significant number of RBS beamtocolumn connections, primarily at the exteriors of the frames,
did not satisfy the ASCE 41 acceptance criteria for the LSP and NDP. Although the nonlinear
acceptance criteria and detailing recommendations in ASCE 41 were derived from experimental
test data, the rationale for the quantitative development of the cumulative reduction factors on these
criteria (i.e., 0.8 multipliers in ASCE 41 5.4.2.4.34) is unclear. The analytical results indicate that
step functionbased cumulative reduction factors can have a significant impact on the performance
of a SMF. Further, reduction factors for the spantodepth ratio limitations for beamtocolumn
connections have potentially opposing effects that could impact the results between linear and
nonlinear assessment procedures.
Assessment results illustrate that panel zones designed per ASCE 7 and its referenced standards,
including the common practice of upsizing columns to offset the need for doubler plates and/or
continuity plates, consistently satisfied the ASCE 41 acceptance criteria by a large margin.
Consequently, the panel zones are deemed stronger than required by ASCE 41. Specifically,
upsizing columns can impact the strength of panel zones in reference to the balance yield approach
adopted by ASCE 41 and in turn can influence the performance of the beamtocolumn connections.
Components of the SMFs that do not satisfy the CP acceptance criteria would need to be
strengthened to achieve the performance required by ASCE 41. However, the results from the
various assessment procedures were seen to be inconsistent in some cases for a given design routine
(i.e., LSP vs. NDP) or the same assessment procedure was inconsistent between design routines
(i.e., ELF and RSA). This makes it difficult to definitively suggest that using ASCE 41 to design a
new SMF would produce a system capable of achieving the seismic performance objective of
ASCE 7. Future research is needed to evaluate the collapse probability of a new system
strengthened by ASCE 41 relative to the seismic performance objective of ASCE 7. The same is
required for a new system that has component strengths reduced from that required by ASCE 7 to
meet an ASCE 41 performance objective. Further, the adequacy of the components of the enhanced
xxix
frame (those required to satisfy ASCE 41) would be dependent upon which analysis procedure is
used to iterate between design and assessment, and therefore the fidelity of the analytical model
and analysis parameters.
Results of this study indicate that for ASCE 41 to be used as a seismic design procedure for new
steel buildings, as a performancebased alternative to ASCE 7 (see ASCE 7 1.3.1.3), acceptance
criteria for the various analysis methods must be calibrated to each other to consistently result in a
uniform collapse risk. Additionally, ASCE 41 would need to reference materialspecific design
standards (e.g., AISC 341) for their seismic design requirements, as well as consistent requirements
for defining acceptance criteria for a component (e.g., plastic rotation).
xxx
Introduction
In 1997, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) published FEMA 273: NEHRP Guidelines
for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA 1997) as a first step towards standardizing seismic
performance assessment procedures for existing buildings. This effort, produced under the Applied
Technology Councils project 33 (ATC33), was the first significant step in implementing performancebased seismic design (PBSD) into practice. Subsequently in 2000, FEMA and the American Society of
Civil Engineers (ASCE) published FEMA 356: Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic
Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA 2000e). This publication introduced many changes to FEMA 273 to
refine the accuracy and applicability of the provisions. The changes are chronicled in FEMA 357: Global
Topics Report on the Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA
2000f). In 2006 ASCE published ASCE/SEI 4106: Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings (ASCE
2006) as an ASCE Standardhereafter referred to as ASCE 41. This document is referenced by the
International Existing Building Code (IEBC) published by the International Code Council (ICC) (ICC
2012a).
ASCE 41 represents the current stateofpractice in seismic evaluation and rehabilitation of existing
buildings. This standard is referenced by the California Building Standards Code (CBSC 2010), Federal
government building standards (e.g., NIST 2011a), and a number of other local jurisdictions. ASCE 41
provides analytical procedures and criteria for evaluating buildings and designing seismic retrofits based
on a defined performance goal (i.e., Life Safety and Collapse Prevention). This ability to explicitly define
a performance goal and then assess a building design against that goal has led practitioners to adapt ASCE
41 methodology for use in new building design. The performancebased methodologies in ASCE 41 provide
an alternative to the traditional prescriptive approaches used in the current standard for new buildings,
ASCE/SEI 710: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE 2010)hereafter
referred to as ASCE 7. Referenced by the International Building Code (IBC) (ICC 2012b), ASCE 7 is
widely used throughout the country for seismic design of new buildings. However, with the trend toward
performancebased design, the correlation between the performance of a building designed with the
prescriptive provisions of ASCE 7 and assessed with the performancebased provisions of ASCE 41 is
largely unknown.
The next version of ASCE 41 (ASCE 41131) will offer a new track for application of the provisions to
existing buildings whose performance goal is equivalent to that of a building designed with the new building
standard. Consequently, this new track will allow direct seismic performance assessment of new buildings
or, alternatively, a substitute seismic design approach via Chapter 1 of ASCE 7. For example, the PBS
P100: Facility Standards for the Public Buildings Service (GSA 2012) prescribes that ASCE 4106 shall
1 ASCE 4113: Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings (ASCE 2014) was being developed during this project period.
As such, new or updated provisions in ASCE 4113 were not incorporated, except where changes were required to align with the
seismic hazard prescribed in ASCE 710.
11
be used for the seismic design of new GSA facilities2 and that the guidelines from ASCE 41 are intended
to be applied to new buildings. This document does not permit a building to be designed for seismic
performance below the minimum level specified by IBC. The National Institute of Building Sciences
(NIBS) is using PBSP100 as the basis for developing their National Performance Based Design Guide
(NIBS 2013). Further, the Provisions Update Committee for the Building Seismic Safety Council is
currently deliberating expanded provisions for performing nonlinear response history analysis (Chapter 16
in ASCE 7) for the 2015 edition of the NEHRP Recommend Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New
Buildings and Other Structures (FEMA 2015). These expanded provisions reference ASCE 4113 in the
commentary for modeling and acceptance criteria for the design of new buildings.
This report presents the results of a study investigating the correlation between the seismic performance of
an ASCE 7 codecompliant building and its performance as quantified using ASCE 41 analysis procedures
and structural performance metrics. This investigation is performed by evaluating a suite of structural steel
buildings in a high seismicity region that are designed using ASCE 7 and evaluated using ASCE 41. The
basic question is whether the standards for designing new steel buildings and assessing existing steel
buildings provide consistent levels of performance. The intended outcome of this research is to advance the
stateofknowledge in performancebased seismic design and assessment of buildings using ASCE 41.
Further, results provide the technical background for provisions that target equivalent seismic performance
between a new building and an existing building that is required to meet the seismic performance objective
of a new building.
Applicability of ASCE 4113 to this Study
During this project, ASCE/SEI 4113, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings (ASCE 2014),
completed committee balloting and was sent out for public comment as well as for approval for inclusion
in the IEBC. Any significant differences between ASCE 4106 and ASCE 4113 regarding assessment of
steel structural systems will be highlighted in the discussions where applicableunless otherwise noted,
reference to ASCE 41 refers only to ASCE 4106.
One significant addition to ASCE 4113 is a process for applying the provisions for the seismic assessment
of existing buildings where the intended performance is equivalent to that which is intended for new
buildings designed in accordance with ASCE 7, including a correlation matrix between the two standards.
While ASCE 4106 is being used currently in practice to justify seismic performance of new buildings in
compliance with ASCE 7 (as well as to identify noncompliance), this addition is the first step in
conceptually aligning future editions of ASCE 41 and ASCE 7 so that ASCE 41 can be used for the seismic
design of new buildings. Still, there are variations between materialspecific provisions in ASCE 41 and
provisions in material design standards referenced in ASCE 7 (e.g., AISC 360 and ACI 318) that need to
be resolved.
The seismic hazard used to characterize the design basis earthquake is that with a 10% probability of exceedence in 50 years. This
differs from that used in ASCE/SEI 705 (ASCE 2005)twothirds of that with a 2% probability of exceedence in 50 yearsand
ASCE 710twothirds of that producing a 1% probability of collapse in 50 years.
12
In terms of assessment of steel systems, the technical content in ASCE 4113 did not change in any
significant manner that invalidates the results presented in this report. The few changes that would affect
the results of individual components are highlighted where applicable. In fact, data from this study
instigated some of these changes.
1.1
Traditional prescriptive seismic provisions for new buildings principally concentrate on the Life Safety
objective applied to allencompassing arrangements of similar lateral forceresisting systems. Little
consideration is given to either the actual performance of individual buildings or the economic loss and
occupancy interruption that may occur after an earthquake. Thus, a need arises for seismic provisions that
allow engineers to design buildings and assess them against varying levels of performance associated with
varying levels of earthquake hazard. So doing provides a method where desired building damage levels can
be coupled to both quantitative and qualitative definitions of performance so that building and operational
stakeholders are integrated into a project. Conceptually, PBSD was conceived to satisfy this need. The
objective of PBSD is to provide a means of integrating additional performance objectives into the seismic
design of new buildings that explicitly measure and account for risk of casualties, occupancy interruption,
and economic loss including repair costs.
Prescriptive building code procedures, such as those found in ASCE 7, tend to restrict design innovation
and can lead to inefficient structural designs and higher construction costs. In lieu of its prescriptive
provisions, ASCE 7 allows alternative rational design methods, such as PBSD, to be used in new building
design. PBSD affords the designer the freedom to bypass prescriptive building code provisions by
demonstrating that a building performs to an explicitly defined performance target that equals or exceeds
the life safety objective in prescriptive provisions. The use of such methods must be approved by the local
authority having jurisdiction and typically requires rigorous structural analysis coupled with a high level of
expertise.
Although ASCE 7 allows PBSD (see ASCE 7 1.3.1.3) to be used in new building design, it provides no
substantial guidance on implementing PBSD for this purpose. Therefore, many practitioners and local
authorities have turned to the provisions in ASCE 41 as a way of implementing PBSD into new building
design. These provisions, widely considered to be first generation PBSD principles, were originally
intended to be used in the evaluation of existing buildings by assessing performance compliance with a
selected rehabilitation objective. Since ASCE 41 is applicable to existing buildings, it does not provide a
direct correlation between the rehabilitation objective and the intended performance of an ASCE 7 codecompliant new building (see Table 11). However, the IEBC does provide a correlation between ASCE 41
performance levels and IBC (and thus ASCE 7) Risk Categories, thus providing the link between the
prescriptive requirements for new building design and the nonprescriptive requirements of existing building
assessment and PBSD. A matrix showing this correlation is shown in Table 12. Still, this matrix has not
been comprehensively validated nor have the seismic performance expectations for new buildings been
quantitatively assessed to standardize acceptable performance within the framework of ASCE 41, or vice
versa. ASCE 7 has not expressly adopted Table 12 for seismic design.
13
Table 11. Comparison of Seismic Hazard and Associated Performance for ASCE 7 and ASCE 41
Target Building Performance Level 1
Operational
Immediate
Occupancy
(IO)
Life Safety
(LS)
Collapse
Prevention
(CP)
ASCE 41
50% / 50 year2
ASCE 41
(nonstructural)
ASCE 41 Limited
ASCE 41 Limited
ASCE 41 Limited
ASCE 41
20% / 50 year2
ASCE 41
Enhanced
ASCE 41
ASCE 41
Limited
ASCE 41
Limited
ASCE 7
Frequent 1
ASCE 7
Risk Category III
& IV
ASCE 7 Risk
Category I & II
(anticipated) 3
N.A.
N.A.
ASCE 41
BSE1
~ 10% / 50 year 2
ASCE 41
Enhanced
ASCE 41
Enhanced
ASCE 41 BSO
ASCE 41
Limited
ASCE 7
MCER 1
N.A.
ASCE 7
Risk Category III
& IV
ASCE 7 Risk
Category I & II
(design)
N.A.
ASCE 41
BSE2
~ 2% / 50 year 2
ASCE 41
Enhanced
ASCE 41
Enhanced
ASCE 41
Enhanced
ASCE 41 BSO
ASCE 7
MCER 1
N.A.
N.A.
ASCE 7
Risk Category III
& IV
ASCE 7 Risk
Category I & II
(objective) 3
Table 12. Performance Comparison between IBC and ASCE 41 (From IEBC Table 301.1.4.1)
Risk Category
(Based on IBC Table 1604.5)
I
II
III
IV
a. Acceptance criteria for Risk Category III shall be taken as 80 percent of the acceptance criteria specified for Risk Category II performance levels, but
need not be less than the acceptance criteria specified for Risk Category IV performance levels
In June 2008 the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) sponsored a PBSD workshop
for leading practitioners and researchers from around the United States to develop a comprehensive list of
research needs to foster full development and implementation of PBSD. From this workshop, the Building
Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) reported a prioritized list of key PBSD research and implementation needs
in NIST GCR 099172: Research Required to Support Full Implementation of PerformanceBased Seismic
Design (NIST 2009a). The highest priority need identified in this report was to benchmark current PBSD
methodologies (e.g., ASCE 41) with code procedures for design of new buildings. Two observations from
the report were that among workshop participants (1) ASCE 41 procedures are perceived to be overly
14
conservative and (2) existing PBSD methods are not accepted by practitioners as providing a uniform level
of confidence. A supporting reason for these two observations was that no systematic effort had been
undertaken to benchmark structural performance as determined using ASCE 41 procedures, together with
widely accepted procedures for designing new buildings using ASCE 7.
Additionally, needs for the advancement of PBSD have been highlighted by other researchers and
practitioners (ToranzoDianderas 2009, SEAONC 2010, Paret, Searer, and Freeman 2011, and Pekelnicky
and Poland 2012). The needs identified include, but are not limited to the following:
Therefore, the research study presented in this report was undertaken in an effort to address some of these
needs.
1.2
Scope of Project
This report presents the results of a structural seismic performance assessment using ASCE 41 procedures
and performance measures of buildings utilizing steel special moment frames (SMF) as the lateral forceresisting system (LFRS)3.
A suite of archetype buildings that incorporate SMFs along one principal direction of the buildings is
designed in accordance with ASCE 7. The suite consists of 4, 8, and 16story buildings designed using
both the Equivalent Lateral Force (ELF) Procedure and Modal Response Spectrum Analysis (RSA). Both
analysis procedures are used to provide a generally applicable range of LFRS strength within the selected
seismic intensity region. As such, components of an LFRS may include significant overstrength4 to resist
nonseismic loads or to satisfy other design criteria. A design space is created to investigate the effects of
design methodology, building height, and other LFRSspecific geometric modifications on seismic
performance. In reality, the design space is infinitely large and many design choices made in this study can
also have different configurations to evaluate the variation in performance specific to a design choice (e.g.,
study of a range of doubler plate thicknesses in an SMF and the influence on frame column performance).
The seismic performance assessment of the building suite is conducted using both linear and nonlinear
analysis procedures prescribed in ASCE 41:
3 Although the LFRS is a component of a cohesive threedimensional building system that includes structural framing intended to
primarily resist gravity loads and nonstructural components, only the performance of the LFRS as identified by ASCE 41
procedures and measures is presented. The performance of an LFRS can be influenced by the inclusion of gravity framing in a
analysis. Based on the analytical modeling used in this study, this interaction is deemed to be negligible because the LFRS resists
nearly all forces and deformations resulting from lateral loads and movement.
4 Overstrength is defined here as the additional elastic strength in a component that is in excess of the required minimum seismic
strength.
15
For this study, the performance assessment targets the Basic Safety Objective (BSO) prescribed in ASCE
41. This objective includes the interrelated goals of Life Safety (LS) Building Performance Level (BPL) at
the Basic Safety Earthquake1 (BSE1) earthquake hazard level (EHL) and Collapse Prevention (CP) BPL
at the BSE2 EHL (see Table 12 above). This performance objective is chosen to align with the intended
structural performance objective of an ordinary building5 in ASCE 7, which is qualitatively defined here as
life safety provided by collapse prevention of the building, given a maximum considered earthquake
(MCE) event.
To evaluate seismic assessment criteria, each component of the SMFs is designated as a primary component
in accordance with ASCE 41 2.2.5 (and ASCE 41 2.4.4.2). Similarly, quantitative performance measures
(i.e., acceptance criteria) for primary components are used for all assessment procedures, although
performance measures for secondary components are permitted by ASCE 41 for some primary components.
The consistent use of primary acceptance criteria keeps all components and associated assessment results
correlated among the assessment procedures for this study.
The goals of this research are as follows:
Assess new structural steel buildings utilizing SMFs designed per ASCE 7 requirements and, in
turn, evaluated using ASCE 41,
Develop a qualitative link between the performance implied in ASCE 7 in light of the performance
identified by ASCE 41 procedures and performance measures,
Provide guidance or technical support for improved or new provisions in ASCE 41 (and to a lesser
extent, ASCE 7),
Reduce uncertainty in firstgeneration PBSD procedures for performancebased seismic
assessment, and
Identify any inconsistencies, ambiguities, and confusing provisions in ASCE 41.
This report does not discuss the correlation between deterministic performance metrics for components
(e.g., mfactor in ASCE 41) and the system (e.g., Rfactor in ASCE 7)a topic for future research and one
that is required to establish the link between the performance of an ASCE 7 codecompliant design and the
associated performance identified by ASCE 41 procedures and performance measures. Here, it is assumed
that the acceptance criteria for each BPL in ASCE 41 Chapter 5 are quantitatively rational and accurate
interpretations of what deformations / actions are appropriate for the intended structural performance (see
ASCE 41 Tables C12, C13, and C14). Clearly, this is a subjective and, at times, controversial topic, as
some component actions are physically qualified only by experimental test results (i.e., SAC project, see
FEMA 351 (FEMA 2000b)), but not necessarily for all performance levels.
16
In this report, the archetype building designs are presented in Chapter 2. Next, the results from the seismic
assessment in accordance with ASCE 41 and supplementary discussions are presented in Chapter 3. In the
discussion of the assessment results, special focus is given to highlighting any notable differences or
similarities between ASCE 41 and ASCE 7 (including the referenced design standards in ASCE 7 for the
design of structural steel buildings) and to making suggestions for improvements in ASCE 41. Conclusions
are provided in Chapter 4. Selection and scaling of ground motions, including pertinent ground motion data,
for the NDP are provided in Appendix A. Additional information applicable to the design of the archetype
buildings and detailed design calculations for a few example members and connections are provided in
Appendix B. Detailed assessment calculations for a few example members and connections are provided in
Appendix C.
The hope is that other followon projects will be undertaken by NIST and / or other organizations to provide
additional data sets that advance the stateofpractice and stateofknowledge and facilitate the
implementation of performancebased seismic engineering in design of buildings. Further studies of
structural steel systems (e.g., bucklingrestrained braced frames), as well as studies of reinforced concrete
moment frame and shear wall buildings, are planned as next steps at NIST.
17
18
This chapter presents the design of the archetype buildings. General discussions are provided in Section 2.1
on the geometry of the buildings and the design criteria, including sizes of structural members not
considered to principally resist lateral loads. Section 2.2 discusses the structural design loads and associated
design criteria specific to them. Section 2.3 presents information regarding the structural analysis and
mathematical model used in the structural member selection process. Section 2.4 provides the design of the
structural systems principally required to resist lateral loads and stabilize the buildings.
2.1
General Information
A suite of three steelframed office buildings is investigated in this study. It is presumed that the archetype
buildings will be constructed in a high seismicity area (e.g., somewhere along the west coast of the United
Statessee Earthquake Forces section below). Building stability and resistance to environmental loads and
deformations is provided by special moment frames along the EastWest (EW) direction and special
concentrically braced frames along the NorthSouth (NS) direction. All lateral forceresisting systems
(LFRS) are symmetrically located at the perimeter of the building and orthogonal. For purposes of design,
the identified LFRS acts as both the seismic forceresisting system (SFRS) and the main wind forceresisting system (MWFRS). For completeness of the full design of the archetype buildings, design of both
LFRSs is presented below. However, only the assessment of the moment frames will be presented in this
report. Assessment of the braced frames is presented in NIST TN 18632: Assessment of First Generation
PerformanceBased Design Methods for New Steel Buildings, Volume 2: Special Concentrically Braced
Frames (Harris and Speicher 2015).
Each building is rectangular in plan, with five 30foot bays in the EW direction and generally five 20foot
bays in the NS direction. The plan dimensions for all floors and roofs are 152 feet in the EW direction
and 102 feet in the NS direction. For all buildings, the height of the first story is 18 feet and the remaining
story heights are 14 feet. A summary of the geometric structural characteristics of each building is provided
in Table 21. Building schematics are shown in Figure 21 through Figure 23. The typical floor framing
plan is shown in Figure 24 and Figure 25. For brevity, the building schematics do not show symmetrical
elevator core or stairwell diaphragm openings.
Table 21. Structural Characteristics of Archetype Buildings
Bldg. ID
Stories
EW
Dimension
NS
Dimension
EW
LFRS
NS
LFRS
MC4
150 = 5 bays
@ 30
100 = 5 bays
@ 20
SMF
SCBF
MC8
150 = 5 bays
@ 30
100 = 5 bays
@ 20
SMF
SCBF
MC16
16
150 = 5 bays
@ 30
100 = Varies
see Figure 25
SMF
SCBF
21
Notes
SMF: 330foot bays
SCBF: 120foot bay inverted V
(Chevron) with HSS braces
SMF: 330foot bays
SCBF: 120foot bay twostory Xbracing
with HSS braces
SMF: 330foot bays
SCBF: 230foot bays twostory Xbracing with HSS braces
22
23
W1422
W1626
Sym.
About
W1422
W1422
W2784
W1422
W1422
W1422
W1422
W1422
W1422
W1422
W1626
W1422
W1422
W2784
W1422
W1422
W1626
C Sym. About D
W1626
W1626
5 @ 20'0" = 100'0"
W1422
5 @ 30'0" = 150'0"
W1422
W2784
W1422
W1422
W1422
W1422
W1422
W1422
W1422
20'0"
W1422
W1422
40'0"
Sym.
About
W1422
W1626
W1422
W1422
W2784
W1422
W1422
W1626
C Sym. About D
W1626
W1626
2 @ 30'0" = 60'0"
5 @ 30'0" = 150'0"
24
The archetype buildings are analyzed and designed for all load effects in accordance with the following:
The following material types and corresponding nominal properties were assumed in design:
The archetype buildings do not contain any geometrybased or configurationbased horizontal irregularities,
Type 2, 3, 4, or 5 as defined in ASCE 7 Table 12.31. Horizontal irregularity Type 1 is dependent on postdesign analysis verification, and is presented in Appendix B. Similarly, the archetype buildings do not
contain any geometrybased or configurationbased vertical irregularities, Type 2, 3, or 4 as defined in
ASCE 7 Table 12.32. Vertical irregularity Types 1 and 5 are dependent on postdesign analysis verification
and are presented in Appendix B. The buildings are classified as Risk Category II structures in accordance
with ASCE 7 1.5.
2.2
Loads and load combinations used for analysis and strength design of members and connections are in
accordance with ASCE 7 2.3, including modifications to these combinations prescribed in ASCE 7 12.4.
This resulted in 189 load combinations for design of each component. Capacity design provisions for each
SFRS type prescribed in AISC 341 as well as for beamtocolumn connections in an SMF prescribed in
AISC 358 provided several design load combinations in addition to those from ASCE 7.
Loads and load combinations for serviceability analysis and verification (e.g., wind drift), and seismic drift
analysis and allowable drift compliance verification are discussed subsequently under Environmental
Loads, 2.2.3.
Gravity Loads
The floor and roof dead load consists of the weight of the steel members, metal deck, and concrete slab
weight (3 inch lightweight concrete at 110 pcf on 18gage, 3 inch metal deck 46 psf). Superimposed
dead loads are taken as 15 psf for floors and 10 psf for the roof, representing mechanical, electrical,
plumbing, and miscellaneous dead loads. A 250 plf superimposed dead load is also applied to the perimeter
25
horizontal framing to account for faade (curtain wall) weight. The edge of the slab is 1 foot from the
perimeter framing. The design live load (unreduced) is 50 psf for floors and 30 psf for the roof (increased
live load within egress areas is neglected in this study). A summary of the design gravity loads is presented
in Table 22.
Table 22. Design Gravity Loads
Load
Dead, D
Floor Superimposed Dead, SD
Roof Superimposed Dead, SD
Faade Dead (Curtain Wall), SD
Unreduced Design Floor Live, Lo
Unreduced Design Roof Live, Lo
1
2
Load Type
Dead
Dead
Dead
Dead
Floor Live
Roof Live
Magnitude
46 psf 1
15 psf
10 psf
250 plf
50 psf (Office)
30 psf 2
Weight of slab and metal deck only. Selfweight of steel components is included automatically in the structural analysis.
10 psf was added to the roof live load to represent noninertial service equipment weight.
Verification of serviceability criteria under gravity loads is performed per IBC 1604.3, ASCE 7 1.3.2,
and AISC 360 Chapter L.
Environmental Loads
Earthquake Forces
The archetype buildings are located where it is assumed they would be assigned a Seismic Design Category
(SDC) at the upper limit of D (i.e.,6Dmaxsee footnote 6). Two designs are produced for each archetype
building height and frame type as follows:
One design using the ELF procedure per ASCE 7 12.8 to determine the equivalent seismic effects.
One design using the RSA procedure per ASCE 7 12.9 to determine the equivalent seismic effects.
Two designs are performed to provide a common range of potential system strengths for seismic assessment
using ASCE 41, and to a lesser extent, provide comparison points between the two design methodologies.
There are cases when the two designs do not result in different member sizes because of materialspecific
minimum requirements. Further, wind effects are determined from statically applied design forces and thus
the analysis method for wind does not vary between the two seismic analyses.
For the RSA procedure, enough modes are included in each principal direction to exceed 90 percent mass
participation in both horizontal orthogonal directions. Masses were not modeled in the analysis to address
vertical accelerations. Design forces determined from the RSA are scaled up so that the total modal base
shear for design is equal to 85 percent of the corresponding base shear from applying the ELF procedure;
story drifts are not scaled for verifying seismic drift compliance. Application of orthogonal seismic forces
and accidental eccentricity prescribed in ASCE 7 12.5 and ASCE 7 12.8.4, respectively, are considered
in the strength design analysis. The redundancy factor, , is taken as 1.0 for each SFRS, and therefore does
not affect the allowable seismic drift limits along the EW direction (moment frames).
See FEMA P695: Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors (FEMA 2009a) for further information.
26
Effective seismic weights for computing the horizontal earthquake forces are determined from dead loads
plus 20 percent of the unreduced design floor live loads to represent partition weight (i.e., 0.250 psf = 10
psf). The effective seismic weights (lumped at each level) are tabulated in Appendix B. It is assumed in this
study that there is no snow load on the building.
The story gravity loads for seismic drift analysis prescribed in ASCE 7 12.8.6 (including period
calculation) and stability verification prescribed in ASCE 7 12.8.7 are determined from dead loads plus
25 percent of the unreduced floor live loads (i.e., 0.25Lo 0.5L where L is the reduced floor live loads).
Roof live loads are considered not to be present for seismic drift analysis. The effective lumped gravity
load acting on a story is tabulated in Appendix B. Vertical seismic loads are considered for strength design
but not for drift or stability compliance. Similarly, application of orthogonal seismic forces and accidental
eccentricity are not considered in the drift analysis because story drifts are computed at the center of mass
(which aligns with the center of stiffness) of each story because of building symmetry and regularity. The
centers of mass for all stories are vertically aligned.
The seismic hazard in ASCE 7 is based on a risktargeted design philosophy and is defined as ground
motions having a one percent probability of causing total or partial structural collapse (i.e., risk) of an
appropriately designed structure in 50 years (except in areas controlled by the deterministic cap7 on ground
motions). This ground motion intensity is denoted in ASCE 7 as MCER. The following parameters
summarize the seismic hazard used for design:
1.
SDC
Ss
(g)
S1
(g)
Fa
Fv
Dmax
1.50
0.60 1
1.00
1.50
SMS
= FaSs
(g)
1.50
SM1
= FvS1
(g)
0.90
SDS
= SMS
(g)
1.00
SD1
= SM1
(g)
0.60
3.5TS
(sec)
2.1
Allowable seismic drift limit is set to hsx / 50 (for amplified story drifts, see ASCE 7 12.12) where hsx is
the story height below the level under consideration. Composite action between the beams of the SFRS and
the concrete slab is not considered for checking seismic drifts or when computing the fundamental period,
T1. This action is commonly neglected in seismic analysis and design because research has shown that the
slab does not contribute significantly to the strength or stiffness of the assembly at significant inelastic
deformations (see FEMA 355D (FEMA 2000c)).
The seismic analysis and design parameters for each archetype building are provided in Table 24 for the
EW direction and Table 25 for the NS direction. There is one archetype building system that is not
Regions where probabilisticbased ground motion parameters exceed those resulting from deterministic ground motions based
on the characteristic magnitudes of earthquakes from welldefined active fault systems.
27
permitted to be designed with the ELF procedure because its design period, CuTa, is greater than 3.5Ts (see
ASCE 7 12.6): EW component of MC16 (SMF)this system is shaded in Table 24. This frame is
included to make a seismic performance comparison. Furthermore, ASCE 7 is vague about which T is
referenced in ASCE 7 12.6. For example, although the capped fundamental period (T = CuTa) may satisfy
3.5Ts, the actual fundamental period (T = T1) may not, indicating that the ELF procedure may be used for
strength design but not used for drift verification per ASCE 7 12.8.6.2. Consequently, the same analysis
procedure was used for both strength design and computation of the design story drifts in this study.
Table 24. Seismic Analysis and Design Parameters, EW
Building
SFRS
R, Cd, o
CuTa (seconds)
ELF Permitted?
Height Limit (feet)
Analysis Procedure
W 1 (kips)
Vb 1 Design (kips)
Vb 1 Drift (kips)
RSA Scaling Factor 3
T1 4 (seconds)
T2 4 (seconds)
T3 4 (seconds)
T1 5 (seconds)
T1 6 (seconds)
Steel Wgt.7 (tons)
MC4
SMF
8, 5.5, 3
1.04
Yes
No Limit
ELF
RSA
5172
5136
374
316
213
166
Design = 93
NA
Drift = 266
1.82
2.22
0.55
0.61
0.26
0.29
1.83
2.24
1.77
2.12
37
29
MC8
SMF
8, 5.5, 3
1.76
Yes
No Limit
ELF
10618
467 2
273
NA
2.91
1.02
0.56
2.94
2.79
74
RSA
10527
394 2
192
Design = 101
Drift = 266
3.81
1.30
0.68
3.86
3.55
53
ELF
21782
958 2
375
NA
4.36
1.58
0.91
4.40
4.15
193
MC16
SMF
8, 5.5, 3
3.02
No 8
No Limit
RSA
21649
810 2
295
Design = 134
Drift =266
5.01
1.83
1.05
5.07
4.70
163
Notes:
Inertial mass computed as Dead + Superimposed Dead + 0.2Floor Live. W for ELF and RSA differ because of member size differences.
0.044SDSIe min. controls strength design (not applied for drift).
3
Scaling for design = gIe / R(0.85Vb,ELF) / Vb,RSA. Scaling for drift = gIe / RCd / Ie. Scaling assumes the spectrum is defined as a function of g.
4
Computed from a secondorder eigenvalue analysis with Dead + Superimposed Dead + 0.25Floor Live gravity load.
5
Computed from a secondorder eigenvalue analysis with 1.2Dead + 1.2Superimposed Dead + 0.25Floor Live gravity load.
6
Computed from a firstorder eigenvalue analysis.
7
Per single SFRS (see Table 11). Does not include connection or miscellaneous steel.
8
Analysis procedure not permitted per ASCE 7 12.6. Shaded Area: design is included for seismic performance comparison purposes.
1
2
MC4
SCBF
6, 5, 2
0.60
Yes
240
ELF
5172
857
782
NA
T1 4 (seconds)
T2 4 (seconds)
T3 4 (seconds)
T1 5 (seconds)
T1 6 (seconds)
Steel Wgt.7 (tons)
0.67
0.27
0.18
0.67
0.66
13
RSA
5136
723
627
Design = 74
Drift = 322
0.72
0.28
0.19
0.72
0.71
12
MC8
SCBF
6, 5, 2
0.99
Yes
240
ELF
10618
1073
735
NA
1.45
0.48
0.27
1.45
1.43
28
RSA
10527
904
633
Design = 92
Drift = 322
1.50
0.49
0.28
1.51
1.49
27
MC16
SCBF
6, 5, 2
1.64
Yes
240
ELF
21782
1326
1089
NA
2.08
0.70
0.39
2.09
2.06
127
RSA
21649
1120
945
Design = 76
Drift = 322
2.14
0.71
0.40
2.14
2.11
123
Notes:
1
Inertial mass computed as Dead + Superimposed Dead + 0.2Floor Live. W for ELF and RSA differ because of member size differences.
2
0.044SDSIe min. controls strength design (not applied for drift).
3
Scaling for design = gIe / R(0.85Vb,ELF) / Vb,RSA. Scaling for drift = gIe / RCd / Ie. Scaling assumes the spectrum is defined as a function of g.
4
Computed from a secondorder eigenvalue analysis with Dead + Superimposed Dead + 0.25Floor Live gravity load.
5
Computed from a secondorder eigenvalue analysis with 1.2Dead + 1.2Superimposed Dead + 0.25Floor Live gravity load.
6
Computed from a firstorder eigenvalue analysis.
7
Per single SFRS (see Table 11). Does not include connection or miscellaneous steel.
28
The difference in the stiffness and strength of the SCBFs provided by the ELF and RSA procedures is
negligible. This is primarily due to design provisions prescribed in AISC 341 (e.g., minimum widthto
thickness ratios for highly ductile braces). A summary of the equivalent seismic forces for each archetype
building is provided in Appendix B.
Wind Forces
Basic wind speeds are taken from the ASCE 7 wind maps based on locations along the west coast that
would have a high probability of producing structures assigned to SDC D. The basic wind speed is taken
to be 110 mph for the 700year wind for strength design of components and 72 mph for the 10year wind
for verifying story drifts (serviceability). Each archetype building is assigned to Exposure B and is not
considered rigid, with gust factors, Gf, for each principal direction computed assuming two percent
damping. Torsional wind effects are considered, and the directionality factor, kd, is 0.85. A summary of the
wind forces for each archetype building is provided in Appendix B.
Allowable wind drift limit is set to hsx / 400 (elastic) for the 10year wind. Composite action between the
beams of the MWFRS and the concrete slab is considered for checking wind drift and when computing the
fundamental period, T1, for wind vibrations using an average Ieff as recommended in AISC 360 commentary
for Chapter I. The same gravity load combination used for the seismic drift analysis is used in the wind drift
analysis (see previous discussion under Earthquake Forces2.2.3.1).
Not all practitioners will use the 10year wind to verify drift compliance (see ASCE 7 commentary for
Appendix C); the 25year or 50year may be used, depending on projectspecific requirements. The 10year
wind is considered appropriate for these structures, as the faade (curtain wall) is designed to accommodate
large inplane seismic movements, and period control (i.e., acceleration) is typically not a concern for
building geometries in the range used for this investigation.
2.3
The archetype buildings are analyzed in ETABS, ver. 9.7.4 (CSI 2011a). A conventional secondorder
elastic analysis is used to determine the required strength of components, and member and story
deformation demands (elastic and virtual inelastic). This type of analysis uses a constant reduced stiffness
matrix based on an initial gravity (i.e., P) load combination applied in a preanalysis as follows:
The analyses do not account for material nonlinearity or geometric imperfections (except for gravityonly
load combinationssee AISC 360 Chapter C). Because the stiffness matrix remains constant for all loads,
superposition of individual load effects in load combinations is applicable.
Each building is considered globally restrained horizontally, vertically, and rotationally at the seismic base
(taken at grade level). The base columns of the LFRSs are embedded into the foundation wall. As such,
column bases are modeled as rotationally restrained in the plane of the frames and rotationally unrestrained
29
outofplane. NonSFRS gravity column bases are considered rotationally unrestrained in both orthogonal
directions.
The mathematical models are based on centerline dimensions with rigid end offsets at the beamtocolumn,
bracetobeam / column, and bracetobeam joints with panel zones explicitly modeled based on column
web and doubler plate (if required) geometry. The slabs are modeled as semirigid membrane diaphragms
(no outofplane bending stiffness) with a 0.5 inplane stiffness modifier to account for cracking at the
design loadssee NIST GCR 1191710: Seismic Design of Composite Steel Deck and Concretefilled
Diaphragms: A Guide for Practicing Engineers (NIST 2011b).
In the moment frames, reduced beam sections (RBS) are explicitly modeled in all SMF beams by
subdividing each member into seven segments; the RBS is modeled as two linearlytapered sections. The
typical fully restrained (FR) beamtocolumn connection is illustrated in Figure 26, and the equivalent
assembly model for linear analysis is shown in Figure 27.
c
c
a
Section AA
Continuity Plates
typ., if required
Reduced Beam
Section
Doubler Plate,
if required
Panel Zone
In the concentrically braced frames, member ends of the SCBF diagonal braces are rotationally unrestrained
outofplane and restrained inplane (though design forces do not vary significantly if modeled as
unrestrained in both planes). Partially rigid end zones are included to capture gusset plate rigidity; the
tangible length of SCBF diagonal braces is taken equal to 90 percent of the distance between work points
(W.P.), Lwp.
The adopted bracetobeam / column connection in the SCBF allows the beam to rotate near the edge of the
gusset plate as shown in Figure 28see AISC 341 Figure CF2.8. The assembly model for linear analysis
is shown in Figure 29. A rotationally unrestrained connection (adjacent to the gusset plate) was selected
210
because ASCE 41 does not prescribe flexural acceptance criteria for beamtocolumn connections where a
brace is present. This approach also provides a seismic design and assessment that does not rely on the
contribution of nonbrace assemblies for stiffness and strength. All other beamtocolumn connections are
simpletype connections (i.e., rotationally unrestrained).
c
c
a
Section AA
Column, EIc
Line Element,
typ.
node
Column, EIc
a
Rigid End
Zone, typ.
b/2
Reduced Beam
Section
Beam, EIb
Figure 27. FR RBS BeamToColumn Connection Subassembly Model for Linear Analysis
Diagonal braces were analyzed without gravity loads. Thus, two analyses were performed for each
archetype building: (1) a gravity loadonly model with braces removed and (2) a lateral force and gravity
load model with braces in place. Load effects then were taken from the respective analysis for input into
load combinations.
NonLFRS framing that primarily supports gravity loads is included in the mathematical models to capture
the leaning column effect. The gravity beams are modeled as composite beams with rotationally
unrestrained member ends (i.e., shear tab connections). The gravity columns are modeled as continuous
along the height of the building and designed for deformation compatibility. The increase in lateral stiffness
along the two principal axes due to these columns is negligible. Other than the columns, no other forms of
lateral stiffness attributed to nonSFRS framing (e.g., stairs) and nonstructural components are considered
in the mathematical model.
211
C
L Column
Gusset Plate (shop welded)
C
L Brace
Slab on metal deck
w/ isolation at connection
node
C
L Beam
W.P.
Effective Rotationally
Unrestrained Connection
Figure 28. Typical BracetoBeam / Column Connection Assembly
Outofplane
rotation release
Column, EIc
node
Column, EIc
Rigid End
Zone, typ.
node
W.P.
18"
Panel Line Element,
typ.
Zone
Beam, EIb
Beam, EIb
Figure 29. BracetoBeam / Column Connection Subassembly Model for Linear Analysis
212
2.4
SFRS Design
SMF Design
For the SMF designs, seismic drift criteria prescribed in ASCE 7 12.12 tended to control member sizes
for both 4story archetype buildings and the 8story ELFdesigned archetype building. The seismic stability
criteria prescribed in ASCE 7 12.8.7 tended to control member sizes for the 8story RSAdesigned
archetype building and both 16story archetype buildings (ELF design was more drift controlled than the
RSA design). The strongcolumn / weakbeam (SCWB) criteria using an amplified seismic load (axial) and
section compactness requirements provided additional constraint on column sizes where required.
The RBS beamtocolumn connections were designed in accordance with AISC 358 with the flange cut out
dimensions optimized to produce the lowest probable moment, Mpr. Because the bay length did not change,
the same beam depth was used for a given floor for uniform connection constructability and plastic hinge
sequencing optimization (i.e., yield rotation is theoretically equal). The panel zones are designed for
demands based on the probable moment of the RBS projected to the column face using nominal material
properties. AISC 360 J10.6 (b) is applicable for panel zone design because the effect of panel zone
deformations on frame stability is explicitly considered in the analysis. The flow chart in Figure 210
illustrates the analysis and design process for an SMF. Additional details on design and construction of
special moment frames can be found in NIST GCR 099173: Seismic Design of Steel Special Moment
Frames: A Guide for Practicing Engineers (NIST 2009b).
To reflect industry practice and reduce fabrication costs, column sizes were increased from that required
by analysis rather than adding doubler plates. AISC Design Guide 13 (AISC 1999) and Troup (1999)
showed that increasing the column size by up to 100 plf to eliminate both continuity plates and doubler
plates was often the more economical alternative. Some seismic specifications (e.g., AISC 341), however,
either require or suggest the use of transverse stiffeners in all high seismic applications. For these cases,
eliminating the need for doubler plates alone may still prove to be the economical choice (Lee et al. 2002).
In this study, this increase typically occurred at interior frame columns and on average was 100 plf for the
frame as a whole.
The Effective Length Method (see AISC 360 C1) is used for design of the SMF columns, with the Story
Buckling Method (see commentary for AISC 360 Appendix 7) used to compute the effective length, KL =
K2L8(see footnote 8) for determining the nominal compression strength, Pn, of the column in the plane of
the frame. In all but one SMF, at least one story had B2, as defined in AISC 360 Appendix 8, greater than
1.1; all stories were less than 1.5 (see AISC 360 Appendix 7). Tabulated values for B2 are provided in
Appendix B. KL = L was adopted for determining Pn of the column outofplane of the frame.
AISC 36005 (AISC 2005) used the term K2 to define the inplane effective length factor. AISC 36010 Appendix 7 uses K in lieu
of K2. However, K2 is still used in the commentary of Appendix 7. Therefore, K2 is also used here. Additional information can be
found in Steel Design Guide 28: Stability Design of Steel Buildings (AISC 2013).
213
StrengthAnalysis
perASCE7.
Design Frame
Beamsand Beam
toCo lu mn
Co nnection s
CapacityDesign
AnalysisperAISC
341.
NoGood?
Des ign Columns
andPanelZo nes.
Good?
Dr iftan dStability
Analysisper
ASCE7
Verify Design
UpdateMem ber
StoryDrift
Sizes
NOGOOD?
GOOD?
END
Computation of inplane effective length factors is generally considered to be not required for columns in
regular moment frames in high seismicity areas (i.e., adopting KL = L). Seismic story drift and stability
requirements in ASCE 7 typically result in significant inplane story strength and stiffness above that
required by the analysis. However, the concept of story drift control without consideration of its effects on
a moment frame is a nontechnical rationale for neglecting the effective length factors for inplane seismic
design of frame columns. Essentially, the effects of drift control reduce the error in calculating the beamcolumn strength for load combinations including lateral forces because of the following (taken from White
and Hajjar 1997):
The inplane, strongaxis radius of gyration, rx, is increased thus lowering KL / rx in the design
equation. Column strength varies little with large variations of KL / rx.
The columns are heavily restrained at each end by deep beams, and subjected to nearly doublecurvature bending under sideway of the frame.
The beamcolumn interaction check for the lateral forceresisting columns is dominated by the
moment term.
214
Designers must also consider the vertical strength of a story9 loaded only with gravitytype loads, as well
as the correlation of the actual demand relative to this vertical strength (e.g., Pstory / Pe,story as defined in
AISC 360 Appendix 8). This story strength would represent the minimum value of Pn (in the absence of
moment) for construction of the PM interaction diagram for the inplane strength of a frame column in the
story. Fundamentally, the effective length factor for a column is a function of the frame deformation
demands and the loading on the column. Consequently, a PM interaction diagram would need to be
constructed for each category of load combination (e.g., vertical load, vertical plus horizontal loads)
considering the influence of the ratio of vertical to horizontal loading demands as well as which loading is
being incremented until incipient buckling. Theoretically, KL = L should be adopted when the physical
behavior of the column at its ultimate strength aligns with the theoretical definition of the compression
strength. Future studies should investigate designing the selected frames using the Direct Analysis Method
prescribed in AISC 360 Chapter C.
In proportioning frame members for this study, section depths were selected to maintain a low inplane
relative beamtocolumn stiffness ratio, G. AISC 360 commentary for Appendix 7 defines G for bending
about the strongaxis as Equation (21)see AISC 360 for definitions of the variables and subscripts.
EI x,c
Lc
G
EI
Lx,b
b
(21)
Other relationships can be used to show that G can be computed as function of the inplane flexural section
strength, ZxFy, independent of the inplane flexural stiffness, EIx. Equation (22) shows that the strongaxis plastic section modulus, Zx, is a function of the strongaxis moment of inertia, Ix, and section depth, d.
Equation (23) rewrites the SCWB equation in AISC 341 (see E3.4a) for a wideflange section.
Zx
M p ,c
M p ,b
(22)
P
min 1.18 1 u , ,1.0 Z x ,c Fy
Py
Z x ,b Fy
Py
2I x
d
P
min 1.18 1 u ,
Py
d c Lb
d
b Lc
,1.0
The vertical story strength, Pe,story, is a function of the elastic lateral stiffness of the story.
215
,1.0 Z x ,c
(23)
(24)
In the previous equations, Pu, is the axial load demand in the column including the system overstrength
factor, o, in ASCE 7 as required by AISC 341 E3.4a. An additional rule of thumb is that dc db / 2 and
dc db. For example, an 18inch deep column and 24inch deep beam were selected for the SMF in the 8
story building. Conservatively assuming a 15 percent reduction in plastic flexural strength of the column
leads to G = 1.9 (see Equation (25)). A 27inch deep column and 36inch deep beam could also have been
selected, but this would have been at the expense of architectural constraints and construction budget.
G
d c Lb 1.0 d c 360
18
2.52 1.9
24
P db Lc 0.85 db 168
1.18 1 u,
Py
(25)
This approach assists in selecting member depths while attempting to minimize relative elastic flexural
stiffness variations between the beams and columns within a story, and between adjacent stories. As
discussed previously, computing G is not required unless the size of the frame column is governed by
strength requirements and one is using the Effective Length Method; tabulated values for K are provided in
Appendix B.
The lateral force distributions and story shears for each archetype building are provided in Appendix B.
Allowable drift compliance verification is provided in Appendix B. Similarly, verification for drift
amplification from global pdelta (P) effects and ASCE 7 stability verification are also provided in
Appendix B. Design calculations for select members and connections are provided to illustrate the design
process in Appendix B.
The 4, 8, and 16story SMF frame designs are shown in Figure 211 through Figure 213. Each figure
shows both the RSA design (a) and the ELF design (b)underlined member sizes indicate changes from
the RSA design. These figures also provide the RBS dimensions and fundamental periods of the archetype
building for various gravity loads (e.g., drift and strength design).
216
W14257
W14159
W14233
W14145
(a) RSA
(b) ELF
217
W14193
W14132
W14193
W14132
(a) RSA
218
W18192
W18175
W18192
W18106
W18143
W1871
W18119
W1855
(b) ELF
Figure 212. 8Story SMF Schematic, Contd
219
3 @ 30'0" = 90'0"
61
W2455 RBS
43
W2712 9
41
W2794 RBS
25
51
35
W3010 8 RBS
13
W3313 0 RBS
7
43
29
W3313 0 RBS
1
44
11th Fl o or
30
39
38
40
10th Fl o or
same
27
35
23
36
9th Floor
24
31
30
32
8th Floor
same
21
27
17
28
7th Floor
(ELEV = 88 ft.)
18
23
22
24
6th Floor
(ELEV = 74 ft.)
same
14
15
19
20
5th Floor
(ELEV = 60 ft.)
same
11
12
15
14
16
4th Floor
(ELEV = 46 ft.)
same
8
9
11
10
12th Fl o or
33
same
9
W3313 0 RBS
4
48
same
18
13
13th Fl o or
36
20
17
W3313 0 RBS
10
52
47
46
26
21
14th Fl o or
39
same
25
W3010 8 RBS
16
56
same
34
W3010 8 RBS
19
42
26
33
29
15th Fl o or
same
W2723 5
37
60
55
54
42
W2728 1
W2714 6
W2716 1
59
32
41
W3010 8 RBS
22
W2719 4
W2723 5
W2794 RBS
31
16th Fl o or
45
same
W2728 1
W2711 4
45
64
same
50
W2794 RBS
28
W2723 5
63
62
38
49
W2794 RBS
34
Roof
48
same
W2736 8
W2711 4
W2455 RBS
37
47
58
53
44
57
W2455 RBS
40
same
12
3rd Floor
(ELEV = 32 ft.)
same
W2736 8
W2794
W2455 RBS
46
W2733 6
Sym. Abou t
W2712 9
6
7
2nd Floor
(ELEV = 18 ft.)
same
2
3
3
= Panel Zon e
= Colu mn Splice
(a) RSA
Figure 213. 16Story SMF Schematic
220
3 @ 30'0" = 90'0"
B
W2455 RBS
43
W2712 9
61
47
W2794 RBS
37
41
W2728 1
W2712 9
35
W2728 1
W2716 1
29
W2730 7
W2721 7
W2736 8
10th Fl o or
27
35
23
36
9th Floor
24
31
30
32
8th Floor
same
20
21
27
28
7th Floor
(ELEV = 88 ft.)
same
17
18
23
22
24
6th Floor
(ELEV = 74 ft.)
same
14
15
19
18
20
5th Floor
(ELEV = 60 ft.)
same
11
12
15
14
W3313 0 RBS
7
16
4th Floor
(ELEV = 46 ft.)
same
8
9
11
10
W3313 0 RBS
4
W2736 8
40
same
26
W2730 7
W2725 8
W2733 6
11th Fl o or
30
39
26
W3313 0 RBS
W2753 9
44
same
W3313 0 RBS
13
12
3rd Floor
(ELEV = 32 ft.)
same
5
6
7
W3313 0 RBS
1
1
12th Fl o or
33
43
38
W3313 0 RBS
16
48
same
34
36
32
W3313 0 RBS
19
13
13th Fl o or
same
W3313 0 RBS
22
17
52
47
46
W3010 8 RBS
25
25
14th Fl o or
39
51
42
33
56
same
W3010 8 RBS
28
10
42
38
41
21
15th Fl o or
same
W3010 8 RBS
31
29
60
55
50
37
16th Fl o or
45
59
54
W3010 8 RBS
34
64
same
same
49
45
Roof
48
63
62
58
53
44
57
W2794 RBS
40
same
W2723 5
W2794
W2455 RBS
46
W2711 4
Sym. Abou t
2nd Floor
(ELEV = 18 ft.)
same
2
2
3
3
= Panel Zon e
= Colu mn Splice
(b) ELF
Figure 213. 16Story SMF Schematic, Contd
221
SCBF Design
SCBF designs are included here to provide the required information of the building for SMF designs. For
the SCBF designs, seismic strength requirements prescribed in ASCE 7 and seismic compactness
requirements in AISC 341 controlled brace sizes for all archetype buildings. Section compactness and
capacity design requirements in AISC 341 F2.3 (i) and (ii)exception 2(a) is not considered here
governed column and beam sizes. The beams in the 4story frames are laterally braced per AISC 341 and
designed for the unbalanced load created by a buckled brace. For the 8 and 16story frames, except at the
second floor, beam sizes were maintained at each floor based on the largest required strength (usually at
the third and fourth floors). The beams on the second floor had an atypical change in required strength
because of the variation in adjacent story heights. The flowchart in Figure 214 illustrates the analysis and
design process for an SCBF. Additional details on design and construction of special concentrically braced
frames can be found in NIST GCR 1391724: Seismic Design of Steel Special Concentrically Braced
Frame Systems: A Guide for Practicing Engineers (NIST 2013).
StrengthAnalysis
perASCE7.
Design Bracesand
Brac e
Co nnection s.
Iterate ana lysis
and de sign
CapacityDesign
AnalysisperAISC
341.
NoGood?
Des ign Columns
andBeams.
Good?
Dr iftan dStability
Analysisper
ASCE7
Verify Design
UpdateMem ber
StoryDrift
Sizes
NOGOOD?
GOOD?
END
222
Wind drift criteria began to influence the 16story SCBF when two isolated 20foot twostory braced bays
were used (as done in the 4 and 8story archetype buildings). Therefore, a double 30foot bay configuration
was adopted to minimize nonseismic force contributions to member selections, as well as to allow seismic
assessment of longer (potentially slender) braces.
The Effective Length Method (see AISC 360 C1) is used for design of the SCBF braces, beams, and
columns. The effective length factor, K, was conservatively taken as unity for determining the nominal
compression strength, Pn, of the SCBF members, although a lower value could be justified by analysis.
Though the gusset plate connections are not fully designed and detailed in this study, a lower value of K
could have been adopted where the rotational stiffness of the connection can influence the assumed
boundary conditions of the adjacent braces (outofplane buckling controlled design). Hollow structural
sections (HSS) are used as the diagonal braces in all archetype buildings while keeping face dimensions
within the adjacent column flange widths. The tangible length of SCBF braces is taken equal to 90 percent
of the distance between work points, Lwp. Diagonal braces are designed not to carry gravity loadssee 2.3.
The lateral force distributions and story shears for each archetype building are provided in Appendix B.
Allowable drift compliance verification is provided in Appendix B. Similarly, verification for drift
amplification from global pdelta (P) effects and ASCE 7 stability verification are also provided in
Appendix B. Design calculations for select members and connections are provided to illustrate the design
process in Appendix B.
The 4, 8, and 16story SCBF frame designs are shown in Figure 215 through Figure 217, respectively.
Each figure shows both the RSA design (a) and the ELF design (b)underlined member sizes indicate
changes from the RSA design. These figures also provide the fundamental periods of the archetype building
for various gravity loads (e.g., drift and strength design).
223
20'0"
Sym. Abou t
2
Roof
(ELEV = 60 ft.)
W2710 2
4
HSS553/8
7
W1453
HSS443/8
4th Flo or
(ELEV = 46 ft.)
W2710 2
3
5
3rd Floor
(ELEV = 32 ft.)
W2711 4
HSS5.55.53/8
HSS661/2
W1413 2
2
3
2nd Flo or
(ELEV = 18 ft.)
W2716 1
1
2
(a) RSA
20'0"
Sym. Abou t
W2712 9
Roof
(ELEV = 60 ft.)
HSS553/8
W1453
HSS441/2
4th Flo or
(ELEV = 46 ft.)
W2710 2
3
5
3rd Flo or
(ELEV = 32 ft.)
W2714 6
HSS661/2
HSS665/8
W1413 2
2
3
2nd Floor
(ELEV = 18 ft.)
W2717 8
1
2
(b) ELF
Figure 215. 4Story SCBF Schematic
224
(a) RSA
Figure 216. 8Story SCBF Schematic
225
W1468
W14132
W14176
W14311
(b) ELF
Figure 216. 16Story SMF Schematic, Contd
226
2 @ 30'0" = 60'0"
Sym. About
46
HSS553/8
57
53
58
44
54
41
W1855
27
59
55
60
45
56
42
15th Floor
28
14th Floor
49
45
26
50
38
46
35
W1855
23
51
47
52
39
48
36
13th Floor
24
12th Floor
41
37
42
22
32
W1855
19
38
29
43
39
44
33
40
30
11th Floor
20
10th Floor
W1645
17
25
22
33
29
18
34
26
30
23
W1855
15
35
31
36
27
32
24
9th Floor
16
8th Floor
W1645
13
19
16
25
21
14
26
20
22
17
W1855
11
27
23
28
21
24
18
7th Floor
(ELEV = 88 ft.)
12
6th Floor
(ELEV = 74 ft.)
W1645
9
13
10
17
13
18
10
14
W1855
7
14
11
19
15
20
15
16
12
5th Floor
(ELEV = 60 ft.)
4th Floor
(ELEV = 46 ft.)
W1645
5
7
4
HSS885/8
16th Floor
30
21
28
HSS771/2
48
W1645
31
HSS665/8
64
25
34
HSS661/2
63
W1645
37
HSS661/2
47
29
40
HSS661/2
62
Roof
32
W1645
43
HSS5.55.53/8
61
W1855
31
10
9
5
6
8
W1855
3
6
11
7
12
3rd Floor
(ELEV = 32 ft.)
2nd Floor
(ELEV = 18 ft.)
W1897
1
1
2
2
(a) RSA
Figure 217. 16Story SCBF Schematic
227
Fundamental Periods
2 @ 30'0" = 60'0"
Sym. About
46
HSS553/8
57
53
58
44
54
41
W1855
27
59
55
60
45
56
42
15th Floor
28
14th Floor
49
45
26
50
38
46
35
W1855
23
51
47
52
39
48
36
13th Floor
24
12th Floor
41
37
22
42
32
38
29
W1855
19
43
39
44
33
40
30
11th Floor
20
10th Floor
W1645
17
25
22
33
29
18
34
26
30
23
W1855
15
35
31
36
27
32
24
9th Floor
16
8th Floor
W1645
13
19
16
25
21
14
26
20
22
17
W1855
11
27
23
28
21
24
18
7th Floor
(ELEV = 88 ft.)
12
6th Floor
(ELEV = 74 ft.)
W1645
9
13
10
17
13
18
10
14
W1855
7
14
11
19
15
20
15
16
12
5th Floor
(ELEV = 60 ft.)
4th Floor
(ELEV = 46 ft.)
W1645
5
7
4
HSS885/8
16th Floor
30
21
28
HSS771/2
48
W1645
31
HSS771/2
64
25
34
HSS771/2
63
W1645
37
HSS665/8
47
29
40
HSS661/2
62
Roof
32
W1645
43
HSS5.55.53/8
61
W1855
31
10
9
5
6
8
W1855
3
6
11
7
12
3rd Floor
(ELEV = 32 ft.)
2nd Floor
(ELEV = 18 ft.)
W1897
1
1
2
2
Fundamental Periods
(b) ELF
Figure 217. 16Story SCBF Schematic, Contd
228
Seismic Assessment
This chapter presents the results of the seismic assessment of the special moment frames in accordance with
ASCE 41. Section 3.1 provides general discussions on the global analysis requirements for assessment.
Analysis requirements specific to moment frames and assessment results of primary components of the
frames are provided in Section 3.2.
3.1
Assessment Overview
A seismic performance assessment of the special moment frames is conducted using both linear and
nonlinear analysis procedures prescribed in ASCE 41 2.4:
Seismic assessment analyses follow the guidelines outlined in ASCE 41 Chapters 1 through 3, and, where
applicable, ASCE 41 Chapter 5. Foundations, including soilstructure interaction, and geological site
hazards (ASCE 41 Chapter 4) are not considered in this study. Modeling and assessment requirements for
steel structural systems follow the provisions in ASCE 41 Chapter 5. Any deviations from these guidelines
are explained where applicable.
The seismic performance target (i.e., rehabilitation objective) for this study is selected as the Basic Safety
Objective (BSO) in ASCE 41 1.4.1. This selection allows the correlation between the seismic performance
objective intended by ASCE 41 and the intended design objective of ASCE 7 for an ordinary building12 to
be evaluated. The BSO associated goals for Structural Performance Levels (SPLs) found in ASCE 41 1.5.1
and Earthquake Hazard Levels (EHLs) found in ASCE 41 1.6 are given in Table 31. Nonstructural
Performance Levels (NPLs) found in ASCE 41 1.5.2 are not considered in this study. The target Building
Performance Levels (BPLs) found in ASCE 41 1.5.3 are given in Table 31.
The only explicit connection between the target structural performance objectives (i.e., SPL) of the BSO
in ASCE 41 and the intended structural design performance objective of ASCE 7 is Collapse Prevention
given an MCE event, assuming that the BSE2 EHL is equivalent to the MCE defined by ASCE 7see
Table 11 and Table 31. It is presumed by ASCE 7 that an appropriately designed structure using a seismic
hazard of MCE will achieve this structural design performance objective. ASCE 7 does not explicitly
10
The user can alternatively perform a linear response history analysis. This was not done in this study, although it would bypass
31
identify a target structural design performance objective for Life Safety at MCE. Rather, ASCE 7
contains implicit life safety measures to protect against loss of life from nonstructural damage at the designlevel event, MCE.
Table 31. Seismic Performance Targets (from ASCE 4106)
Earthquake Hazard
Level
BSE1 1.6.1.2
BSE2 1.6.1.1
Earthquake Intensity
2/3BSE2
Maximum Considered
Earthquake (MCE)
Structural
Performance Level
Life Safety (S3)
Collapse
Prevention (S5)
Nonstructural
Performance Level
Not Considered (NE)
Not Considered (NE)
Building
Performance Level
Life Safety (3E)
Collapse
Prevention (5E)
Prior to ASCE 710, the MCE was defined as a uniform seismic hazard associated with a two percent
probability of being exceeded in 50 years, except near known faults where deterministicbased hazards
controlled. ASCE 710 adopted a risktargeted design philosophy that shifts from a uniform hazard design
basis to a uniform risk design basis, and defines the MCE ground motion intensity (denoted as MCER) as
ground motions having a one percent probability of causing total or partial structural collapse in 50 years.
This risk has a conditional probability (anticipated reliability) of ten percent probability of total or partial
structural collapse conditioned on the occurrence of an MCE eventsee ASCE 7 Table C.1.3.1b. Several
reference documents are available for more information about this implementation (FEMA 2009b,
commentary of ASCE 710 (3rd printing), and NIST 2012). Therefore, the approved MCE in ASCE 4106
1.6.1.1 (see BSE2 in Table 31) should be taken as the MCER in ASCE 710 to maintain equivalency
between the standards. ASCE 4113 2.2.4 prescribes using the MCER to define the BSE2 EHL for the
new building equivalency track. The seismic performance targets for this study are taken from ASCE 41
13 and are given in Table 32.
Table 32. Seismic Performance Targets (from ASCE 4113)
Earthquake Hazard
Level
BSE1N 1 2.4.1.2
BSE2N 1 2.4.1.1
1
Earthquake Intensity
2/3BSE2N
Maximum Considered
Earthquake (MCER)
Structural
Performance Level
Life Safety (S3)
Collapse Prevention
(S5)
Nonstructural
Performance Level
Not Considered (NE)
Not Considered (NE)
Building Performance
Level
Life Safety (3E)
Collapse Prevention
(5E)
ASCE 4113 expanded the term BSE to include N or E depending on the chosen assessment track. For this project, the N is dropped to follow the terminology used
in ASCE 4106.
This study does not evaluate assessment results for earthquake hazard levels with return periods shorter
than identified above or building performance levels below Life Safety. Future research efforts may
evaluate incorporating other performance levels for design in ASCE 7see NIST GCR 1291720:
Tentative Framework for Development of Advanced Seismic Design Criteria for New Buildings (NIST
2012).
32
Seismic Hazard
The seismic hazard is defined in ASCE 41 1.6. The spectral response parameters for the BSE2 ( BSE
2Nsee above) and BSE1 ( BSE1Nsee above) EHLs are given in Table 33. The parameters
summarize the seismic hazard13 for Site Class D, Stiff Soil, in ASCE 41 1.6.1.4.1.
Table 33. Spectral Response Parameters
EHL
BSE2
BSE1 2
1
2
3
S1
(g)
0.60 1
0.60 1
SS
(g)
1.5
1.5
Fa 3
Fv 3
1.0
1.0
1.50
1.50
SXS
(g)
1.50
1.00
SX1
(g)
0.90
0.60
Ts (sec)
T0 (sec)
0.60
0.60
0.12
0.12
Figure 31 illustrates the generalized response spectrum for BSE1 and BSE2.
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0
Period, T (seconds)
Figure 31. Acceleration Response Spectra
13 The seismic hazard in ASCE 4113 is the MCE , ground motion based on a risktargeted design philosophy in which an
R
appropriately designed structure will have a one percent probability of collapse (i.e., risk) in 50years (except in areas controlled
by the deterministic cap on ground motionssee ASCE 7 commentary for Chapter 11).
33
dimensional analysis. Because of building symmetry, the inherent torsional moment at each floor is
theoretically zero. Accidental torsional moment (i.e., five percent mass offset) at each floor is not
considered in the assessment analyses because the displacement modifier, , associated with the applied
loads including accidental torsion is less than 1.1 at every floor for all buildings (see Table 34 and Table
35). The values in these tables for determining torsional irregularity are based on floor displacements
relative to the base and not story drifts as used in ASCE 714.
All members and connections of the seismic forceresisting system (SFRS) are classified as primary
components in accordance with ASCE 41 2.4.4.2 for both linear and nonlinear assessment procedures.
Gravity framing (nonSFRS members and shear tab connections) is assumed in this study to provide
negligible analytical lateral stiffness and strengthsee ASCE 41 3.2.2.3. Therefore, components of the
nonSFRS framing are classified as secondary components for both linear and nonlinear assessment
procedures. Similar to the assumptions adopted for design, specific component stiffnesses (e.g., partially
restrained composite shear tab connections and stairs) are not modeled explicitly in the mathematical model.
This is done to minimize the influence of secondary components on the demands imposed on primary
components. This will allow assessment results between linear and nonlinear analysis to be compared.
Performance assessment of these secondary members is outside the scope of this studythough would
need to be checked in a real retrofit design. In addition, foundation or soil flexibility is not included in the
analysis. Models for anticipated component inelastic actions in nonlinear assessment procedures include
both strength and stiffness degradationdiscussed subsequently in 3.2.
ASCE 41 3.2.3Configuration: Building irregularities are discussed in ASCE 41 3.1.3.1. Building
irregularities defined in ASCE 41 are used only to determine whether the linear procedures are applicable.
ASCE 41 3.2.4Diaphragms: Floor diaphragms are modeled for analysis as semirigid membranes (i.e.,
stiff per ASCE 41). The same assumptions adopted in design are maintained for assessment.
ASCE 41 3.2.5P Effects: Global P effects are considered in the linear and nonlinear analyses, for
both static and dynamic. Local P effects are not addressed either explicitly or implicitly in the analyses.
ASCE 41 3.2.6SoilStructure Interaction: SoilStructure Interaction is not considered in the seismic
assessment of the archetype buildings.
ASCE 41 3.2.7Multidirectional Seismic Effects: The principal axes of the archetype buildings align
directly with the EW and NS directions (performance in the EW direction is presented in this report).
Seismic effects are determined by applying the seismic forces independently in each of the two orthogonal
directions. Per ASCE 41 3.2.7.1, concurrent seismic effects are addressed in the assessment by combining
the effects along each principal axes.
14
Amplification of the accidental torsion, if required, is consistent between ASCE 41 and ASCE 7.
34
ASCE 41 3.2.7Vertical Seismic Effects: Vertical seismic effects are not considered for seismic
assessment of the archetype buildings. Masses are input for horizontal accelerations only for dynamic
analysis.
ASCE 41 3.2.8Gravity Loads: Gravity loads for the linear assessment procedures are applied using the
following two load combinations (LC). Roof live loads are considered not to be present for seismic analysis.
There is no snow load acting on the buildings.
A P load combination based on LC1 above is used for the linear assessment analyses; consequently, this
is conservative for analysis using LC2.
Both gravity load combinations above are used for the nonlinear static procedure. The average of the two
combinations (LC1 and LC2) is applied in the nonlinear dynamic procedure.
A P load combination based on LC3 above is used for the nonlinear assessment analyses.
ASCE 41 3.2.9Verification of Design Assumptions: The following design objectives are verified with
the nonlinear dynamic procedure.
ASCE 41 3.2.10Overturning: Overturning is not considered for design or seismic assessment of the
archetype buildings.
Analysis Procedures
This section discusses the implementation of the specific analysis procedures prescribed in ASCE 41 3.3
in this study.
Linear Analysis Procedures
The archetype buildings are modeled and analyzed in ETABS 9.7.4 (CSI 2011a) for the linear analyses.
The assumptions used in the mathematical model and analysis techniques are the same as those adopted for
design (see Chapter 2). Modeling and analysis considerations for the linear procedures are outlined in ASCE
41 3.2.2 with supplemental information provided in ASCE 41 3.3.2.2 for the Linear Dynamic Procedure
(LDP). Gravity loads and load combinations assumed present during the earthquake are computed from
35
ASCE 41 3.2.8 as discussed previously. The effective horizontal seismic weights, w, for analysis are
computed in accordance with ASCE 41 3.3.1, and are the same as those used for design (see Chapter 2).
Global P effects (e.g., B2 in AISC 360 Appendix 8) are addressed in the analysis by using a simplified
algorithmsee ETABS User Manual. ETABS does not explicitly include local P effects (e.g., B1 in AISC
360 Appendix 8). System specific modeling assumptions and analysis techniques are described in their
respective sections.
Table 34. Displacement MultiplierEW (SMF)
Floor
Roof
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9 (Roof MC8)
8
7
6
5 (Roof MC4)
4
3
2
=max / avg
MC4
MC8
ELF
RSA
ELF
RSA
1.010
1.007
1.010
1.007
1.009
1.006
1.009
1.006
1.006
1.006
1.008
1.005
1.006
1.006
1.008
1.005
1.005
1.005
1.007
1.005
1.005
1.005
1.007
1.005
MC16
ELF
RSA
1.010
1.008
1.009
1.007
1.009
1.007
1.009
1.007
1.009
1.007
1.009
1.007
1.008
1.007
1.008
1.007
1.008
1.007
1.008
1.007
1.008
1.007
1.008
1.007
1.008
1.007
1.008
1.007
1.008
1.007
1.008
1.007
Values shown to four significant figures are for comparison purposes only.
Floor
Roof
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9 (Roof MC8)
8
7
6
5 (Roof MC4)
4
3
2
=max / avg
MC4
MC8
ELF
RSA
ELF
RSA
1.087
1.091
1.087
1.091
1.088
1.091
1.088
1.092
1.093
1.094
1.089
1.092
1.094
1.095
1.090
1.093
1.094
1.095
1.090
1.093
1.094
1.095
1.091
1.093
Values shown to four significant figures are for comparison purposes only.
36
MC16
ELF
RSA
1.088
1.090
1.088
1.090
1.088
1.090
1.088
1.090
1.089
1.090
1.089
1.090
1.089
1.090
1.089
1.091
1.089
1.091
1.089
1.091
1.089
1.091
1.090
1.091
1.090
1.091
1.090
1.091
1.090
1.091
1.089
1.090
ASCE 41 2.4.1.1 prescribes restrictions on the use of the linear procedures. First, a retrofitted 15 SFRS
must not contain certain types of structural irregularities where the earthquake demands on the primary
components of the SFRS fail to comply with the demand capacity ratio (DCR) limitations.
DCR
QUD
2.0
QCE
(31)
where QUD is the demand on a component due to gravity and earthquake loads and QCE is the expected
strength of the component. The archetype buildings do not contain any configurationbased inplane or outofplane irregularities. Further, a linear analysis procedure must be performed to determine whether a
building contains a weak story or torsional strength irregularity. Because of plan symmetry and regularity
of the archetype buildings, there are no torsional irregularities. The required weak story irregularity
verifications are discussed subsequently in the linear static procedure for each specific system type.
3.1.3.1.1
The Linear Static Procedure (LSP) is outlined in ASCE 41 3.3.1. The provisions of the LSP closely
resemble those of the ELF procedure in ASCE 7; as such, no additional analysis details are presented here.
However, one place where ASCE 7 and ASCE 41 differ is in the determination of the fundamental period,
T, in the direction being analyzed. ASCE 41 does not place an upperbound limit on the period used for
assessment as ASCE 7 does for strength design. In this study, the fundamental periods are determined by
eigenvalue analysis per ASCE 41 3.3.1.2.1.
Further restrictions on the use of the LSP are prescribed in ASCE 41 2.4.1.2. The LSP cannot be used if
any of the following occur:
The fundamental period of the building, T, is greater than 3.5Ts (= 3.50.6 = 2.1 seconds in this
study). This trigger is similar to that used in ASCE 7; however, like ASCE 7, which computation
method for T to be used in this evaluation is not clear. If the analytical method (ASCE 41 3.3.1.2.1)
is used, only the EW component of the ELFdesigned MC4 and NS components of all the
buildings satisfy this requirementsee Table 36 (directional components that fail this criteria are
shaded). If the empirical method (ASCE 41 3.2.1.2.2) is used, all building components satisfy this
constraint except the EW component of MC16. In this study, this analysis constraint is disregarded
to allow an assessment comparison between methodssee Table 37 (directional components that
fail this criteria are shaded).
The building has a ratio of the horizontal dimension at any story to the corresponding dimension in
an adjacent story that exceeds 1.4. In this study, this constraint is satisfied because the building
plan does not change at any story.
The building has a torsional stiffness irregularity. This limitation is satisfied as discussed previously
under accidental torsion as well as in Chapter 2. In this study, this check is based on the individual
story drift rather than the floor displacement relative to the base.
The building has a vertical stiffness irregularity. In this study, this limitation is automatically
satisfied by using ASCE 7 12.3.2.2 Exception 1 for the design of the archetype buildings.
15
37
The building has a nonorthogonal SFRS. In this study, this limitation is not applicable to the
archetype buildings.
Regardless of the restrictions on using the LSP, results from applying the LSP to the archetype buildings
are included for the purpose of seismic performance comparison between the various assessment methods
in this study.
Table 36. Analytical Fundamental Periods (seconds)
MC4
Direction
EW
NS
SFRS
SMF
SCBF
ELF
1.83
0.67
MC8
RSA
2.23
0.72
ELF
2.93
1.45
MC16
RSA
3.84
1.51
ELF
4.39
2.09
RSA
5.05
2.14
Direction
EW
NS
3.1.3.1.2
SFRS
SMF
SCBF
ELF
0.93
0.43
MC8
RSA
0.93
0.43
ELF
1.57
0.71
MC16
RSA
1.57
0.71
ELF
2.69
1.17
RSA
2.69
1.17
The Linear Dynamic Procedure (LDP) is outlined in ASCE 41 3.3.2. The LDP requires the use of either
response spectrum analysis (RSA) or response history analysis (RHA)only the RSA is presented in this
report. Though there are significant benefits of using the RHA (e.g., maintaining sign convention on
response), the RSA was selected to align with the design methodology. The provisions of the LDP closely
resemble those of the RSA procedure in ASCE 7; as such, no additional analysis details are presented here,
except that no base shear scaling is required by ASCE 41. Damping for analysis is taken as five percent of
critical for all modes for dynamic analysis to match the response spectrum (see ASCE 41 1.6.1.5.3). A
sufficient number of modes is used in the analysis to capture at least 90 percent of the mass participation in
each of the two horizontal principal directions. Masses were not modeled in the analysis to address vertical
accelerations. Furthermore, the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) rule is used to combine the
modal responses so as to obtain the maximum forces and deformations.
Nonlinear Analysis Procedures
The archetype buildings are modeled and analyzed in PERFORM3D 5.0.0 (CSI 2011b) for the nonlinear
procedures. Modeling and analysis considerations for the nonlinear procedures are outlined in ASCE 41
3.2.2 with supplemental information provided in ASCE 41 3.3.3.2 for the Nonlinear Static Procedure
(NSP) and ASCE 41 3.3.4.2 for the Nonlinear Dynamic Procedure (NDP). Primary components of the
SFRS expected to experience inelastic deformations are modeled using a full backbone curve that
includes strength and stiffness (applicable only for the NDP) degradation and residual strength. For this
study, all nonlinear components are modeled with the anchor points (A to E) bounding the full backbone
curve as shown in ASCE 41 Figure C21 and Figure 51see Figure 32. This topic will be discussed
further in the respective analysis and systemspecific sections.
38
Gravity loads and corresponding load combination assumed to be present during the earthquake are
computed from ASCE 41 3.2.8 as discussed previously. The effective horizontal seismic weights, w, for
analysis are computed in accordance with ASCE 41 3.3.1 and are the same as those used for design (see
Chapter 2). Global P effects (e.g., B2 in AISC 360 Appendix 8) are addressed in the analysis by using a
simplified algorithmsee PERFORM3D User Guide (CSI 2011d). PERFORM3D does not explicitly
include local P effects (e.g., B1 in AISC 360 Appendix 8). Building specific modeling assumptions and
analysis techniques are described in their respective sections.
Figure 32. Generalized Component Backbone Curve (adopted from ASCE 41 Figure C21)
3.1.3.2.1
The Nonlinear Static Procedure (NSP) is outlined in ASCE 41 3.3.3. ASCE 41 places limitations on the
use of the NSP in ASCE 41 2.4.2. First, if higher modes are significant, the NSP is permitted with
supplemental verifications required using the LDP. Higher mode effects are consider significant when the
story shear computed by analysis with at least 90 percent horizontal mass participation is at least 1.3 times
greater than that computed considering only response in the fundamental mode. This condition is generally
triggered in multistory buildings with fundamental periods greater than 1.0 second in the direction being
considered (see Table 38 and Table 39story shear ratios that fail this criteria are shaded).
Second, if R > Rmax (as defined in ASCE 41 3.3.3), dynamic instability is a potential failure mode and the
NSP is not permitted. Information regarding this ductility criterion as applied to an idealized singledegree
offreedom (SDOF) system is provided in FEMA 440: Improvements of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis
39
Procedures (FEMA 2005). However, this verification is computationally cumbersome because a nonlinear
static analysis has to be conducted to determine both R and Rmax, prior to knowing if the NSP is permitted.
This verification is illustrated subsequently in the NSP assessment results. The NSP procedure is
graphically illustrated in the flowchart of Figure 33.
310
Structural System
Dynamic
Properties
T1,M1,K1,1
Note:Eff ective
properti esare used
herenotModal
Conduct Pushover
Analysis
Response
Properties
Te,Ke,
factors
Modification
Factors
R,C0,C1,C2,
Sa
End
NSP NotPermitted
No
IsRd<Rmax?
Ye s
Checkmember and
component capacities
(forces and de formati ons)
End
311
Story
Roof
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9 (Roof)
8
7
6
5 (Roof)
4
3
2
MC4
EW
1.45
1.10
1.01
1.06
MC8
EW
1.98
1.41
1.19
1.10
1.05
1.03
1.05
1.10
MC4
NS
1.07
1.01
1.00
1.02
MC8
NS
1.57
1.31
1.13
1.03
1.02
1.06
1.13
1.20
MC16
NS
2.07
1.83
1.61
1.43
1.28
1.17
1.09
1.05
1.04
1.05
1.07
1.12
1.17
1.22
1.26
1.29
MC8
NS
1.59
1.33
1.14
1.03
1.02
1.08
1.17
1.25
MC16
NS
2.11
1.86
1.64
1.45
1.29
1.18
1.10
1.05
1.04
1.05
1.08
1.13
1.18
1.24
1.28
1.31
Story
Roof
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9 (Roof)
8
7
6
5 (Roof)
4
3
2
MC4
EW
1.58
1.14
1.01
1.08
MC8
EW
2.25
1.50
1.22
1.12
1.07
1.05
1.08
1.16
MC4
NS
1.08
1.01
1.00
1.02
The mathematical model requirements for use with the NSP are outlined in ASCE 41 3.2.2 and ASCE 41
3.3.3.2. Primary components of the SFRS expected to experience inelastic deformations are modeled
using full backbone curves that include strength degradation and residual strength (see ASCE 41 3.2.2.3
and ASCE 41 3.3.3.2). ASCE 41 5.4.2.2.2 allows the generalized modeling parameters provided in
ASCE 41 to model the full backbone curves of steel components for the NSP as an alternative to
experimental calibration. In this study, all nonlinear components are modeled with the anchor points (A to
E) bounding the full backbone curve as shown in Figure 32 and quantified in ASCE 41 Tables 56 and 5
7. Component strength at the ultimate deformation, point E on the backbone curve, retains residual strength
312
and does not experience complete strength loss. SFRSspecific modeling approaches are discussed in their
respective sections.
For the nonlinear static analysis algorithm in PERFORM3D, the following apply:
The lateral force distribution is based on a nonadaptive firstmode shape (firstorder elastic) and
mass distribution.
Damping is set to zero percent for all modes with no supplemental Rayleigh damping. All elements
are assigned a betaK damping stiffness reduction factor of unity (no reduction).
Strength degradation is included in the analysis.
Global P effects are directly included in the analysis. Local P effects are not addressed in the
analysis. Geometric nonlinearity is assigned to all elements.
Number of Steps is taken as 100 and Maximum Number of Events is taken as 1,000.
Roof displacement at the center of mass relative to the base is used as the target displacement. The
reference drift is therefore taken as the roof drift; the maximum allowable drift is taken as 10
percent. All story drifts are included in the list of Controlled Drifts.
See PERFORM3D User Guide for additional information.
3.1.3.2.2
The Nonlinear Dynamic Procedure (NDP) is outlined in ASCE 41 3.3.4. The NDP is intended to be the
most rigorous of all the assessment procedures prescribed, with no limitations placed on types of buildings
allowed for the assessment because of the intent of capturing the true behavior of the building subjected to
strong ground motions.
The mathematical model requirements for use with the NDP are outlined in ASCE 41 3.2.2 and ASCE 41
3.3.4.2, except that the pointintime gravity load present during strong ground motion is taken as (D +
SD) + 0.25Lo,floor, a slight but common alternative to ASCE 41 3.2.8 (see ASCE 7 16.2.3). Primary
components of the SFRS expected to experience inelastic deformations are modeled using full backbone
curves that include strength and stiffness degradation and residual strength (see ASCE 41 3.2.2.3 and
ASCE 3.3.4.2).
For the NSP, ASCE 41 5.4.2.2.2 allows using the generalized modeling parameters provided in ASCE 41
Tables 56 and 57 to model the full backbone curves of steel components as an alternative to experimental
calibration. However, for the NDP, ASCE 41 5.4.2.2.3 requires all component hysteretic behavior be based
on experimental data unless permitted by the authority have jurisdiction. The benefit of calibrating
component models with experimental results is that the forcedeformation relationship will more accurately
reflect strength and stiffness degradation, both cyclic and incyclesee NIST GCR 109175: Nonlinear
Structural Analysis for Seismic Design: A Guide for Practicing Engineers (NIST 2010a) and FEMA P
440A: Effects of Strength and Stiffness Degradation on Seismic Response (FEMA 2009c). In this study, all
nonlinear components are modeled with the anchor points (A to E) bounding the full backbone curve as
shown in Figure 32 and quantified in ASCE 41 Tables 56 and 57. All nonlinear components are calibrated
based on experimental results to determine cyclic and incycle stiffness degradation only; postyield
strength increases and strength degradation calibrations from experimental results were not included.
Component strength at the ultimate deformation, point E on the backbone curve, retains the residual strength
and does not experience complete strength loss. SFRSspecific modeling approaches are discussed in their
313
respective sections. Therefore, the same PERFORM3D model used in the NSP is also used in the NDP;
analytical results from the two procedures are thus consistent and directly comparable. Future ASCE 41
revisions should unify modeling practices for the NSP and NDP, as well as provide supporting data to the
authority having jurisdiction. Future research should examine the response of these systems with hysteretic
models calibrated completely to test results, including performing FEMA P695 analyses.
The nonlinear dynamic analysis algorithm in PERFORM3D used the following parameters:
Damping is taken as three percent of critical for all modes (elastic) and 0.3 percent of critical is
added as Rayleigh damping (elastic stiffness component only, betaK) for dynamic analysis.
Damping computation in PERFORM3D is not based on the tangent stiffness matrix. All elements
are assigned a betaK damping stiffness reduction factor of unity (no reduction).
Strength and stiffness degradation are included in the analysis.
Global P effects are directly included in the analysis. Local P effects are not addressed in the
analysis. Geometric nonlinearity is assigned to all elements.
Maximum Number of Events for each time step is taken as 200.
Time steps for analysis are taken as the time step of the input motion, ranging from 0.005 to 0.02
secondssee FEMA P695 Appendix A.
See PERFORM3D User Guide for additional information.
A critical aspect of the NDP is the selection and scaling of input ground motions (freefield motions) which
is described in ASCE 41 1.6.2.2. The methodology adopted in this study is discussed in Appendix A.
In addition to the analysis routine terminating when a solution fails to converge, the routine was also set to
terminate when an arbitrarily selected roof drift ratio of twenty percent16 is achieved (story drift ratios can
be higher). While both of these methods are used to indicate and rationalize total or partial collapse of a
system, the indicator of collapse used in this study is the component demands measured against the
nonlinear modeling parameters and acceptance criteria. These component limits will typically be reached
prior to an analysis routine failing to converge or an excessive roof drift is reached.
Acceptance Criteria
This section discusses the implementation of the acceptance criteria in ASCE 41 3.4. Component actions
are classified as forcecontrolled or deformationcontrolled depending on the postelastic behavior of the
component (see ASCE 41 Table C21). Generally speaking, deformationcontrolled actions are assigned to
component actions capable of a ductile response (e.g., moment in a plastic hinge in a compact beam) and
forcecontrolled actions are assigned to component actions with limited ductility (e.g., moment in a plastic
hinge in a column with high axial load). Additionally, a knowledge factor, , is applied to account for
uncertainties in the framing system and materials. Since the archetype buildings are new construction with
quality control measures, is taken as unity in this study to represent new component capacities or actions
as discussed in ASCE 41 2.2.2 and ASCE 41 Tables 21, 22, and 23.
16 This value does not change the qualitative performance result of a component; however, it can influence the mean value of a
performance response for a set of records. For example, mean values would be slightly larger than if ten percent was selected.
314
Linear Procedures
Acceptance criteria of components for linear assessment procedures are provided as mfactors. The mfactor
is intended to account for the ductility associated with a specific action and depends on the SPL and
component type. ASCE 41 Table 55 provides the mfactors for steel components for linear assessment
procedures. Adjustments to the mfactors for member or connection characteristics are detailed in ASCE
41 Chapter 5. In this study, actions in forcecontrolled components are assigned m = 1.0 for simplicity and
computational consistency in developed assessment spreadsheets. It should be noted that ASCE 41 does
not assign an mfactor to forcecontrolled components.
3.1.4.1.1
Component forces and deformations obtained by the LSP or LDP are referred to as design actions, QU (e.g.,
flexure in a component).
Component design actions classified as deformationcontrolled, QUD, are computed by
QUD QG QE
(ASCE 41 3.4.2.1.1)
(32)
QUF QG
QE
C1C2 J
(ASCE 41 3.4.2.1.2)
(33)
where QG is the action due to gravity loads and QE is the action due to earthquake effects. Elastic forcecontrolled demands from earthquake effects are divided by C1C2 to remove the demand amplification for
short period structures from nonductile components (see ASCE 41 3.3.1). Similarly, the demand is
divided by J, which is the forcedelivery reduction factor and is taken as the minimum demand capacity
ration (DCR) of the components in the load path delivering force to the component. Alternatively, J can be
taken as 2.0 when the system is located in a region of a high level of seismicity, independent of EHL.
However, holding J constant for multiple performance levels (disregarding the change in intensity) is not
consistent with a capacity design approach, resulting in potentially overly conservative estimates of
component actions in forcecontrolled elements at the higher EHL, or vice versa.
ASCE 41 3.4.2.2 requires that deformationcontrolled and forcecontrolled actions in primary and
secondary components satisfy:
Deformationcontrolled:
Forcecontrolled:
m QCE QUD
m QCL QUF
315
(ASCE 41 3.4.2.2.1)
(ASCE 41 3.4.2.2.2)
(34)
(35)
where m is the component demand modification factor (taken as unity for forcecontrolled actionssee
above), is the knowledge factor (taken as unity in this study), QCE is the expected strength of the
component, and QCL is the lowerbound strength of the component.
The results of the linear assessment procedures are presented in this report as a normalized demand capacity
ratio, DCRN, so that the acceptance criteria verification becomes a unity check similar to that done in modern
component design standards (e.g., AISC 360). DCRN is computed by rearranging ASCE 41 Eq. 320 and
ASCE 41 Eq. 321 as required. As such, a DCRN value greater than unity indicates that the component does
not satisfy the performance criteria for a given SPL. DCRN is similar to, but different than, the DCR as used
in ASCE 41. This approach is also a more consistent way to present results over the various types of
assessment procedures used in this study. However, a slightly different interpretation is also taken in this
study with regards to the DCRN: in lieu of m and adjusting the apparent strength of a component, as
illustrated in ASCE 41 3.4.2.2, m and act to reduce the elastic demand to the expected demand given an
EHL. Where required, the DCRN is determined from an interaction equation from the appropriate equation.
Deformationcontrolled:
Forcecontrolled:
DCRN
DCRN
QUD
DCR
m QCE
m
QUF
[with m taken as 1.0]
m QCL
(36)
(37)
Nonlinear Procedures
Acceptance criteria of components for nonlinear assessment procedures are provided as plastic (inelastic)
deformations dependent on the SPL and component type. ASCE 41 Tables 56 and 57 provide the plastic
deformations limits for steel components for nonlinear assessment procedures. Adjustments to the
acceptance criteria for member or connection characteristics are detailed in ASCE 41 Chapter 5.
Inelastic deformation parameters in ASCE 41 are provided for steel components in terms of plastic
deformations rather than total deformations. The choice of whether to use plastic deformations or total
deformations will depend on what nonlinear component model is adopted for each component action in the
structural analysis (e.g., momentcurvature hinge or momentrotation hinge). Consequently, yield and postyield elastic deformations may need to be added to the values given in ASCE 41 to determine the total
deformation for each SPL.
In this study, demands on primary components of new buildings are measured against acceptance criteria
for primary components. ASCE 41 3.4.3.2 allows primary component demands to be within the
acceptance criteria for secondary components for the NSP if degradation effects are explicitly modeleda
change introduced in FEMA 356. This also includes NDP, although not explicitly stated. This allowance is
neglected in this study for the following reasons:
Bypassing nonlinear acceptance criteria set for primary components suggests that acceptance
criteria for primary components for linear and nonlinear assessment procedures are not calibrated.
In this study, acceptance criteria for primary components are maintained for all assessment methods
to provide a uniform comparison basis.
316
Component forces and deformations obtained by the NSP or NDP are referred to as design actions, QU (e.g.,
plastic rotation in a plastic hinge). Component design actions are computed as the action in the member or
connection at the target displacement for the NSP and as the maximum value for a given earthquake for the
NDP. Subsequently, a statistical average is computed from the maximum values from the suite of ground
motions. In specific cases, the maximum value must be coupled with other actions in the component at the
instant of computation of the maximum response.
Component design actions classified as deformationcontrolled, QUD, are computed by
QUD QG QE
(ASCE 41 3.4.3.2.1)
(38)
(ASCE 41 3.4.3.2.3)
(39)
where QG is the action due to gravity loads (or associated deformation) and QE is the action due to
earthquake effects (or associated deformations). Superposition of forces or deformations is not applicable
317
in a nonlinear analysis; thus, gravity loads are directly applied in the analysis. The above equations are
numerical interpretations of ASCE 41 3.4.3.2. They are used in this study to maintain computational
consistency over the various types of assessment procedures.
ASCE 41 3.4.3.2 requires that deformationcontrolled and forcecontrolled actions in primary and
secondary components satisfy:
Deformationcontrolled:
Forcecontrolled:
QCE QUD
QCL QUF
(ASCE 41 3.4.2.2.1)
(ASCE 41 3.4.2.2.2)
(310)
(311)
where QCE is the expected strength or deformation demand of a component, QCL is the lowerbound strength
of a component, and is the knowledge factor (taken as unity in this study). ASCE 41 Chapter 5 does not
explicitly provide a relationship between QCE (or QCL) and Qy on the forcedeformation curve.
The results of the nonlinear assessment procedures are presented in this report as a normalized demand
capacity ratio, DCRN, where the plastic or total deformation demands are normalized with respect to the
plastic or total acceptance criteria, modified by if required. The acceptance criteria verification then
becomes a unity check similar to that done in modern component design standards (e.g., AISC 360). As
such, a DCRN value greater than unity indicates that the component does not satisfy the performance criteria
for a given SPL. This approach is a consistent way to present results over the various types of assessment
procedures used in this study.
Deformationcontrolled:
DCRN
QUD
QCE
plastic elastic
Total
y pe p , AC
Plastic plastic
p , AC
Forcecontrolled:
DCRN
QUF
QCL
(312)
(313)
where plastic is the plastic deformation of a component, elastic is the elastic deformation of a component, y
is the yield deformation of a component, pe is the postyield elastic deformation of a component, and p,AC
is the acceptance criteria of a component based on plastic deformation.
318
3.2
Moment Frame
Seismic performance assessment of steel moment frames is performed in accordance with ASCE 41 5.4.
The moment frames in the archetype buildings are designed with fully restrained (FR) moment connections
as identified in AISC 360 B3.6b and as an SMF as identified in ASCE 7 12.2 (item C.1 in Table 12.21)
and AISC 341 E3. This designation aligns with that prescribed in ASCE 41 5.4.2, Fully Restrained
Moment Frames. The FR beamtocolumn moment connection used in each SMF is an RBS as identified
in AISC 358 Table 2.1 and ASCE 41 Table 54.
Assessment Methodology
There are three primary characteristics of each component (i.e., member, connection, etc.) forming the
structural model for each assessment method:
1. Stiffness, ASCE 41 5.4.2.2
2. Strength, ASCE 41 5.4.2.3
3. Acceptance Criteria, ASCE 41 5.4.2.4, and whether or not the component action is forcecontrolled or deformationcontrolled.
Each component characteristic is discussed in the appropriate linear and nonlinear assessment discussion.
The following component design actions are assessed in this study:
Beam and column flexural force or deformation at potential plastic hinge zones (section strength)17
Beam and connection flexure and shear strength (e.g., moment at face of column)
Linear Procedures
This section discusses the three primary component characteristics listed in Section 3.2.1 and computation
of the demand in the component for the linear assessment procedures.
Stiffness
The stiffnesses of all members and connections for linear assessment follow ASCE 41 5.4.2.2.1. Panel
zones at the beamtocolumn joints are explicitly modeled; ETABS uses the scissor modelsee User
Manual. Explicit joint and connection modeling is not required because the beamtocolumn connections
are classified as FR. However, the stiffness of the frame beams must be modified to account for the reduced
beam sections within the beamtocolumn connections (see Chapter 2).
17
Beam hinges within the RBS are included in assessment of FR connection (controlling mechanism).
319
Strength
The strength of all members and connections for linear assessment follow ASCE 41 5.4.2.3.2.
The expected flexural strength of a member, QCE = MCE (= Qy), is computed as Mn from AISC 360 Chapter
F18 with b = 1.0 and Fye in lieu of Fy. For ASTM A992 steel, Fye = 1.1Fy (see ASCE 41 Table 53), which
corresponds to RyFy in AISC 341. Composite action with the concrete slab is generally neglected in
computing Mn for frame beams. In so doing, it is assumed that the plastic moment strength is achievable
via adequate lateral bracing, thus Mn = Mp. If the flexural strength is less than Mp, then the available ductility
of the member is significantly reduced because of member or crosssection instability (which also affects
the acceptance criteria). ASCE 41 enforces section compactness requirements through the acceptance
criteriadiscussed subsequently.
The lowerbound flexural strength of a member, QCL = MCL, is computed as Mn from AISC 360 Chapter F18
with b = 1.0 and FyLB in lieu of Fy. For ASTM A992 steel, FyLB = 1.0Fy (see ASCE 41 Table 52).
Although not explicitly identified in ASCE 41 5.4.2.3.2, the expected shear strength of a member, QCE =
VCE (= Qy), is identical to that computed as Vn from AISC 360, Chapter G with v = 1.0 and Fye in lieu of
Fy. Web slenderness, h / tw, is critical in developing a fully yielded crosssection. As such, there are cases
when
418
Fy
2.45
E
h 640
E
3.76
Fy t w
Fy
Fy
(314)
and the web is still capable of achieving full yield strength in shear. However, if the web slenderness
approaches the upper limit (taken as the compact limit in AISC 360 Table B4.1) then the beam may have
difficulty achieving its plastic moment strength, Mp. There is no lowerbound shear strength, VCL, in ASCE
41 or shearmoment interaction.
The lowerbound compression strength of a member, QCL = PCL, is computed as Pn from AISC 360 Chapter
E18 with c = 1.0 and FyLB in lieu of Fy. For ASTM A992 steel, FyLB = 1.0Fy (see ASCE 41 Table 52).
Though identified in ASCE 41 5.4.2.3.22, no explicit guidance is provided for computing the expected
flexural strength, MCE, of a compression member if the axial load demand, P, exceeds 10 percent of the
axial strength. This guidance would be useful for computing the flexural DCR at a given location, such as
at the column base where a plastic hinge is anticipated. The term axial strength of a compression member
is also not well defined (i.e., is it Pye or PCL?). Similarly, P is not defined except in an unrelated provision
for the NSP. ASCE 41 5.4.2.2.2 states that P for a linear analysis is PUF. The flexural strength will also
depend on the selected PM interaction curve, which will use MCE (or MCL) at P = 0 as the anchor point.
Further, there is little need to have triggering language based on 10 percent axial load ratio because it
delineates no physical phenomenon and does not influence computing the yield chord rotation, y. In fact
18
320
this trigger, it adds complexity, which will be discussed subsequently in the Acceptance Criteria section.
ASCE 41 does not delineate between orthogonal buckling axes and nonflexural buckling limit states (e.g.,
torsional, local buckling) for its interaction verification. This can significantly affect the assessment of
beamcolumn members where a high inplane moment is associated with a buckling limit state other than
inplane flexural buckling. Beamcolumns can be further penalized in linear assessment methods where PUF
is highly affected by selecting a value for J.
The expected tension strength of a member, QCE = TCE (= Qy), is computed as AcFye, where Ac is the crosssectional area of the member. ASCE 41 does not provide other tensile strengths, potentially brittle, similar
to AISC 360 Chapter D, e.g. net section fracture.
The expected shear strength of a panel zone, QCE = VCE (= Qy), is computed as 0.55 Fyedbtp. (ASCE 41
Equation 5519). This strength equates to 0.92Vy from AISC 360 Chapter J10.6 with v = 1.0 and Fye in
lieu of Fy. ASCE 41 does not provide additional panel zone strength to account for column flange bending.
ASCE 41 does not provide explicit guidance on computing the expected strength, QCE, of a FR beamto
column connection. The RBS beamtocolumn connections were designed in accordance with AISC 358.
As such, the controlling mechanism is the moment at the center of the RBS. It is assumed that the acceptance
criteria for FR beamtocolumn connections (mfactor) translated from results from the SAC project are
applicable at the face of the columnsee below. Therefore, the moment at the face of the column is used
as the demand, QUD, and the expected flexural strength of the connection, QCE = MCE, is computed as Mp at
the center of the RBS and projected to the face of the column (this value will always be less than using Mp
taken at the column face). Alternatively, the demand and acceptance criteria could be adjusted to the hinge
location (controlling mechanism) and the connection at the face of the column evaluated as forcecontrolled,
see ASCE 41 5.4.2.4.24. ASCE 41 should clarify the intent of ASCE 41 Eq. 514 and express that is the
lowerbound strength of the connection evaluated at the column face compared to the expected strength of
the connection at the hinge location projected to the column face. As noted, AISC 358 design provisions
for an RBS connection satisfies this criteria. Because the plastic hinge is confined within the RBS and forms
away from the face of the column, the flexural demand at the center of the RBS should also be used to
check the plastic hinge as a beam hinge.
Acceptance Criteria
The acceptance criteria of members and connections for linear assessment follow ASCE 41 5.4.2.4.2.
Flexure in Beams and BeamtoColumn Connections
The acceptance criteria for flexural action at expected locations of plastic hinging in beams (members with
axial load ratio less than or equal to 10 percent) are provided in ASCE 41 Table 55 and are dependent on
web and flange slenderness. The range of flange limits match AISC 341 limits for highly and moderately
ductile unstiffened compression elements. The range of web limits match AISC 341 limits for highly and
19
The reason the shear yield stress for a column web (assuming it can be designated as a beam) being defined as 0.6Fye is not
clear, but if the same column web is a panel zone, the shear yield stress is 0.55Fye.
321
moderately ductile stiffened compression elements taking at P = 0. The flange and web slenderness limits
for moderately ductile sections are taken as a compact compression element in AISC 360 (i.e., p). The
lowerbound web slenderness limit is taken as that capable of full section yielding in shear. These web
slenderness limits were introduced in FEMA 356 whereas flange limits were introduced in FEMA 273 and
subsequently modified in FEMA 356 (upperbound limit was changed from a pure axial compression limit
to a compression from flexure limit).
In cases where the expected flexural strength of an unbraced segment is governed by instability (e.g., lateraltorsional buckling (LTB)) rather than full section yielding, the mfactors in ASCE 41 Table 55 shall be
reduced accordingly. Again, ASCE 41 inadvertently references AISC 341 for these calculations as well as
using the notation, Mr, which is no longer used in AISC 360.
The acceptance criteria for beamtocolumn connections (flexural hinge is located within the connection)
are taken from Fully Restrained Moment Connections in ASCE 41 Table 55 and are dependent on
connection detailing, panel zone strength in a balanced yield condition, and member and crosssection
slenderness (see ASCE 41 5.4.2.4.2, 4.1 to 4.4). It is assumed that the acceptance criteria for FR beamto
column connections (mfactor) translated from results from the SAC project are applicable at the face of
the columnsee 3.2.1.2. Furthermore, the mfactors for beams are not applicable for flexural plastic
hinges within the region20 demarcating the beamtocolumn connection when connection components
prevent the unobstructed spread of plasticity. However, because the plastic hinge is forced to develop in a
prescribed location away from the column face, thus allowing essentially unobstructed spread of plasticity
within the RBS zone, mfactors for a beam should also be used to check the performance of the hinge
itself. Unless evaluating at the IO performance level, the mfactor for the beamtocolumn connection will
control over the mfactor for flexure in the RBSsee Table 310.
Table 310. Basic Acceptance Criteria for a W2484
SPL
CP
LS
IO
RBS BeamtoColumn
Connection
6.20.032d = 5.4
4.90.025d = 4.3
3.50.016d = 3.1
Beam
8
6
2
20
This region is also used in AISC 341 to define the protected zone.
322
interaction as shown in Figure 34 and the flexural demand and strength are taken as MUD and MCE,
respectively.
1.0
0.9
0.1
0.8
PUF
M UDx
1.0
2PCL mx M CEx
0.7
PUF
PCL
PUF
0.2
PCL
PUF
0.5
PCL
0.6
0.2
0.5
PUF 8 M UDx
1.0
PCL 9 mx M CEx
P
0.5 UF (mx = 1.0)
PCL
0.4
0.3
PUF M UFx
1.0
PCL M CLx
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0
.3
0.0
0.
5
0
.4
with Fy = FyLB
mx
0.
7
1.
0
0.
9
0.
8
mx M C _ x
0.
6
MU _ x
Notes:
1. Knowledge Factor, , taken as unity.
2. m factors shown are not reduced to reflect compactness requirements or inelastic LTB.
3. BeamColumn with PUF / PCL < 0.1 can be treated as a beam.
Immediate Occupancy
Life Safety
Collapse Prevention
Figure 34. PM Interaction on Section mfactor (inplane) and Member Instability (Primary Component)
The flange slenderness limits for columns are the same as those for beams and are independent of axial
load. The lowerbound web slenderness range is essentially21 75 percent of the slenderness limits in AISC
34102 (AISC 2002)taken from FEMA (2000c)at distinct axial force ratios (0.2 and 0.5). These ratios
are at the upper range of axial force ratios in ASCE 41, albeit PUF / Pye and PUF / PCL represent two physically
different phenomena in regards to plate buckling. The upperbound web slenderness range is essentially the
slenderness limits in AISC 34102 at distinct axial force ratios (0.1 and 0.2). These ratios are at the lower
range of axial force ratio in ASCE 41. Using fixed axial limits on slenderness can lead to excessive
conservatisms because of step function triggers, as illustrated in Figure 35 for the LS SPLAISC 341 web
compactness limits for highly (HD) and moderately (MD) ductile compression elements are included for
comparison. The spherical icons shown in the figure represent the web slenderness ratios for all wideflange
sections currently available. Essentially, 35 percent of these sections do not satisfy the lowerbound criteria
21
Work to develop FEMA 356 was conducted at the same time as the SAC projectsee FEMA 350 series.
323
in ASCE 41 whereas this value reduces to 12 percent when using the AISC 341 criteria for highly ductile
elements. Ultimately, the step functions created by both the axial load ratios and the section compactness
requirements result in a highly complex formulation that is difficult to implement, as illustrated in Figure
36 for the LS SPL (plastic rotation is shown in lieu of mfactor). ASCE 41 could be simplified by
combining the acceptance criteria for beams and columns into one set of criteria with no 10 percent axial
load ratio trigger.
E
Fye
4.0 h
Life Safety
tw
3.5
3.0
h
460
tw
Fye
WideFlange Sections
35% > Group A
1% > Group B
12% > AISC HD
3% > AISC MD
h
400
tw
Fye
2.5
interpolate
between limits
h
418
tw
Fye
2.0
1.5
640
Fye
h
300
tw
Fye
h
260
tw
Fye
P
h
E
P
0.125
2.45
1 0.93
c Py
tw
Fy
c Py
AISC HD
h
E
P
E
P
0.125
0.77
2.93
1.49
c Py
tw
Fy
Fy
c Py
1.0
P
h
E
P
0.125
3.76
1 2.75
tw
Fy
c Py
c Py
AISC MD
h
E
P
E
P
P 0.125 t 1.12 F 2.33 P 1.49 F
w
y
c y
y
c y
0.12
0.0
0.0
0.06
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
In addition to the effect of PM interaction on the mfactors (which is a section strength issue) for checking
flexural actions in a column in accordance with ASCE 41 3.4.2.2, member stability is also checked via
global interaction equations in accordance with ASCE 41 5.4.2.4, as shown in Figure 34see projection
of axial and moment ratios. The discontinuous curve is a result of variable PM interaction equations, with
the discontinuity at PUF / PCL = 0.5 being smallest when MCL at PUF = 0 equals Mp, and gets larger as MUD /
MUF increases. Future efforts should simplify the ASCE 41 interaction curves for consistency and
applicability, including eliminating Fy,LB for a column that also uses Fye.
Axial compression action in a column is always forcecontrolled due to significant reduction in ductility
because of member and crosssectional instability. Again, ASCE 41 is rather ambiguous when it comes to
steel columns. First, there is no guidance on computing MCE for a column. Although ASCE 41 5.4.2.4.2
324
2 provides some information, it is not consistent with that required to define the expected flexural strength,
MCE. Second, the mfactor is reduced for beams to account for LTB. Since this failure mode is also
applicable to columns, the mfactor should similarly be reduced. However, a column that fails in LTB
should be avoided, and m = 1 adopted since LTB is not a ductile phenomenon. Also, is not in the
interaction equations similar to other verification procedures, and it is unclear if these equations have any
physical meaning because member stability and section yielding effects are combined. Moreover, these
equations can be conservative when weakaxis buckling is coupled with inplane (strongaxis) bending.
E
Fye
Primary Component
Life Safety
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
Fye Fy 50 ksi
0.5
7
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.
4
0.
6
1.
0
Notes:
1. Knowledge Factor, , taken as unity.
2. BeamColumn with P / PCL < 0.1 can be treated as a beam.
Plastic Rotation, p = y
0.
8
Figure 36. Acceptance Criteria as a Function of Axial Load Ratio and Section Compactness, LS Acceptance Criteria
In terms of assessment, ASCE 41 does not explicitly address column hinges near the columntobase
connections of a frame (similar to a beamtocolumn connection). Columns are designed in accordance with
capacity design provisions in AISC 341. However, ASCE 41 does not similarly adopt a capacity design
approach for the assessment of MF columns.
Shear in Panel Zones
325
The acceptance criteria for shear action in panel zones are provided in ASCE 41 Table 55. The acceptance
criteria are not a function of the axial force demand in the panel zone.
Demand
The flexural demand, MUD, for the FR beamtocolumn connections is taken as the moment at the face of
the column. The flexural demand, MUD, for the RBS (beam) is taken as the moment at the center of the
RBS. The flexural demand, MUD or MUF, and axial force, PUF, for the column are taken as the moment and
axial force at the face of the each beam (top and bottom).
Table 311 summarizes the basic mfactors for the components of the SMF for the linear procedures. Figure
37 through Figure 312 provide the loadindependent mfactorstaking in to account forcecontrolled and
deformationcontrolled classifications (forcecontrolled component actions are assigned an mfactor of
unity, see 3.1.4.1). These figures are referred to herein as Frame Capacity Schematics. The two values
given for a column represent the cases when PUF / PCL = 0.2 and 0.5, adjusted for section compactness
requirements. At PUF / PCL = 0.2 the interaction equation provides the same value when PUF / PCL < 0.2.
Table 311. Basic mfactors for Linear Procedures, SMF
Performance Level
Component  Action
LS
CP
Beam  Flexure
a)
b)
bf
2t f
bf
2t f
52
and
Fye
h
418
tw
Fye
65
Fye
h
640
tw
Fye
or
c) other
Column  Flexure
linear interpolation
for P UF / P CL < 0.2
a)
b)
bf
2t f
bf
2t f
h
300
52
and t
Fye
Fye
w
65
Fye
or
h
460
tw
Fye
c) other
for 0.2 P UF / P CL
bf
52
a)
and
2t f
Fye
b)
bf
2t f
65
Fye
or
h
260
tw
Fye
h
400
tw
Fye
c) other
Column Panel Zone  S hear
RBS  Flexure
1
1.25
linear interpolation
0.5
5 P
5 P
9 1
12 1
3 PCL
3 PCL
1.25
1.5
linear interpolation
8
11
4.9  0.025d
6.2  0.032d
326
2.81
2.81
8.00
5.73, 1.49
2.82
8.00
6, 1.5
2.83
2.83
8.00
2.83
2.
83
2.84
2.84
8.00
6, 1.5
2.85
2.85
8.00
3.56
3.
56
3.57
3.57
8.00
6, 1.5
2.
2.85
85
8.00
2.
2.85
85
2.
2.85
85
8.00
6, 1.5
5.73, 1.49
6, 1.5
6, 1.5
3.55
3.55
3.56
11.00
8, 2
3.58
11.00
3.58
3.58
11.00
8, 2
3.60
11.00
4.50
4.50
11.00
8, 2
3.60
11.00
3.60
3.60
11.00
8, 2
11.00
7.64, 1.97
7.64, 1.97
8, 2
8, 2
Sym.
(c) Key
Figure 37. Frame Capacity Schematic (mfactor), LS and CP, 4Story SMF ELF
2.81
3.51
8.00
5.63, 1.48
3.52
8.00
6, 1.5
2.
2.81
81
8.00
3.
3.51
51
3.
3.52
52
8.00
6, 1.5
2.
2.81
81
8.00
3.
3.51
51
3.
3.52
52
8.00
6, 1.5
2.
2.81
81
8.00
3.
3.51
51
3.
3.52
52
8.00
6, 1.5
5.63, 1.48
5.63, 1.48
5.63, 1.48
3.55
4.44
4.44
11.00
8, 2
55
3.
3.55
11.00
4.44
4.44
11.00
8, 2
3.55
11.00
4.44
4.44
11.00
8, 2
3.55
11.00
4.44
4.44
11.00
8, 2
11.00
7.49, 1.96
7.49, 1.96
7.49, 1.96
7.49, 1.96
Figure 38. Frame Capacity Schematic (mfactor), LS and CP, 4Story SMF RSA
327
(c) Key
2.27
3.54
8.00
6, 1.5
3.55
8.00
6, 1.5
2.83
8.00
3.54
3.55
8.00
6, 1.5
3.03
8.00
3.78
3.79
8.00
6, 1.5
3.03
8.00
3.78
3.79
8.00
6, 1.5
3.05
8.00
3.81
3.81
8.00
6, 1.5
3.05
8.00
3.81
3.81
8.00
6, 1.5
3.81
8.00
3.81
3.81
8.00
6, 1.5
3.81
8.00
3.81
3.81
8.00
6, 1.5
6, 1.5
6, 1.5
6, 1.5
6, 1.5
6, 1.5
6, 1.5
6, 1.5
2.86
4.48
4.48
11.00
8, 2
3.58
11.00
4.48
4.48
11.00
8, 2
3.82
11.00
4.78
4.78
11.00
8, 2
3.82
11.00
4.78
4.78
11.00
8, 2
3.85
11.00
4.81
4.81
11.00
8, 2
3.85
11.00
4.81
4.82
11.00
8, 2
4.81
11.00
4.81
4.82
11.00
8, 2
4.81
11.00
4.81
4.82
11.00
8, 2
11.00
8, 2
8, 2
8, 2
8, 2
8, 2
8, 2
8, 2
8, 2
Sym.
(c) Key
Figure 39. Frame Capacity Schematic (mfactor), LS and CP, 8Story SMF ELF
1.95
3.05
8.00
4.48, 1.42
3.05
8.00
6, 1.5
2.44
8.00
3.05
3.05
8.00
6, 1.5
2.83
8.00
3.54
3.55
8.00
6, 1.5
2.83
8.00
3.54
3.55
8.00
6, 1.5
2.86
8.00
3.57
3.58
8.00
6, 1.5
2.86
8.00
3.57
3.58
8.00
6, 1.5
2.87
8.00
3.59
3.59
8.00
6, 1.5
2.87
8.00
2.87
2.88
8.00
6, 1.5
4.48, 1.42
6, 1.5
6, 1.5
6, 1.5
6, 1.5
6, 1.5
6, 1.5
2.47
3.86
3.86
11.00
8, 2
3.08
11.00
3.86
3.86
11.00
8, 2
3.58
11.00
4.48
4.48
11.00
8, 2
3.58
11.00
4.48
4.48
11.00
8, 2
3.61
11.00
4.51
4.52
11.00
8, 2
3.61
11.00
4.51
4.52
11.00
8, 2
3.63
11.00
4.54
4.54
11.00
8, 2
3.63
11.00
3.63
3.63
11.00
8, 2
11.00
5.92, 1.84
5.92, 1.84
8, 2
8, 2
8, 2
8, 2
8, 2
8, 2
Sym.
(c) Key
Figure 310. Frame Capacity Schematic (mfactor), LS and CP, 8Story SMF RSA
328
2.31
3.60
8.00
2.37, 1.31
3.61
8.00
4.83, 1.44
3.61
8.00
4.83, 1.44
2.31
8.00
3.60
2.31
8.00
3.60
3.61
8.00
6, 1.5
2.31
8.00
3.60
3.61
8.00
6, 1.5
3.07
8.00
3.83
3.84
8.00
6, 1.5
3.07
8.00
3.83
3.84
8.00
6, 1.5
3.07
8.00
3.83
3.84
8.00
6, 1.5
3.07
8.00
3.83
3.84
8.00
6, 1.5
3.17
8.00
3.97
3.97
8.00
6, 1.5
3.17
8.00
3.97
3.97
8.00
6, 1.5
2.54
8.00
3.97
3.97
8.00
6, 1.5
2.54
8.00
3.97
3.97
8.00
6, 1.5
2.61
8.00
4.07
4.07
8.00
6, 1.5
2.61
8.00
4.07
4.07
8.00
6, 1.5
3.26
8.00
4.07
4.07
8.00
6, 1.5
3.26
8.00
4.07
4.07
8.00
6, 1.5
2.37, 1.31
4.13, 1.4
4.13, 1.4
4.83, 1.44
4.83, 1.44
5.74, 1.49
5.74, 1.49
6, 1.5
6, 1.5
6, 1.5
6, 1.5
6, 1.5
6, 1.5
6, 1.5
6, 1.5
2.91
4.55
11.00
3.03, 1.62
4.56
11.00
6.4, 1.88
4.56
11.00
6.4, 1.88
2.91
11.00
4.55
2.91
11.00
4.55
4.56
11.00
8, 2
2.91
11.00
4.55
4.56
11.00
8, 2
3.87
11.00
4.84
4.84
11.00
8, 2
3.87
11.00
4.84
4.84
11.00
8, 2
3.87
11.00
4.84
4.84
11.00
8, 2
3.87
11.00
4.84
4.84
11.00
8, 2
4.01
11.00
5.01
5.02
11.00
8, 2
4.01
11.00
5.01
5.02
11.00
8, 2
3.21
11.00
5.01
5.02
11.00
8, 2
3.21
11.00
5.01
5.02
11.00
8, 2
3.29
11.00
5.14
5.14
11.00
8, 2
3.29
11.00
5.14
5.14
11.00
8, 2
4.11
11.00
5.14
5.14
11.00
8, 2
4.11
11.00
5.14
5.14
11.00
8, 2
3.03, 1.62
5.44, 1.8
5.44, 1.8
6.4, 1.88
6.4, 1.88
7.64, 1.97
7.64, 1.97
8, 2
8, 2
8, 2
8, 2
8, 2
8, 2
8, 2
8, 2
Sym.
(c) Key
Figure 311. Frame Capacity Schematic (mfactor), LS and CP, 16Story SMF ELF
329
2.31
2.88
8.00
2.37, 1.31
2.88
8.00
4.83, 1.44
3.61
8.00
4.83, 1.44
2.31
8.00
3.60
2.31
8.00
3.60
3.61
8.00
4.83, 1.44
2.31
8.00
3.60
3.61
8.00
4.83, 1.44
3.07
8.00
3.83
3.84
8.00
6, 1.5
3.07
8.00
3.83
3.84
8.00
6, 1.5
3.07
8.00
3.83
3.84
8.00
6, 1.5
3.07
8.00
3.83
3.84
8.00
6, 1.5
3.17
8.00
3.97
3.97
8.00
6, 1.5
3.17
8.00
3.97
3.97
8.00
6, 1.5
2.54
8.00
3.97
3.97
8.00
6, 1.5
2.54
8.00
3.97
3.97
8.00
6, 1.5
2.61
8.00
4.07
4.07
8.00
6, 1.5
2.61
8.00
4.07
4.07
8.00
6, 1.5
3.26
8.00
4.07
4.07
8.00
6, 1.5
3.26
8.00
4.07
4.07
8.00
6, 1.5
2.37, 1.31
4.13, 1.4
4.13, 1.4
4.13, 1.4
4.13, 1.4
4.91, 1.44
4.91, 1.44
5.74, 1.49
5.74, 1.49
6, 1.5
6, 1.5
6, 1.5
6, 1.5
6, 1.5
6, 1.5
2.91
3.64
11.00
3.03, 1.62
3.64
11.00
6.4, 1.88
4.56
11.00
6.4, 1.88
2.91
11.00
4.55
2.91
11.00
4.55
4.56
11.00
6.4, 1.88
2.91
11.00
4.55
4.56
11.00
6.4, 1.88
3.87
11.00
4.84
4.84
11.00
8, 2
3.87
11.00
4.84
4.84
11.00
8, 2
3.87
11.00
4.84
4.84
11.00
8, 2
3.87
11.00
4.84
4.84
11.00
8, 2
4.01
11.00
5.01
5.02
11.00
8, 2
4.01
11.00
5.01
5.02
11.00
8, 2
3.21
11.00
5.01
5.02
11.00
8, 2
3.21
11.00
5.01
5.02
11.00
8, 2
3.29
11.00
5.14
5.14
11.00
8, 2
3.29
11.00
5.14
5.14
11.00
8, 2
4.11
11.00
5.14
5.14
11.00
8, 2
4.11
11.00
5.14
5.14
11.00
8, 2
3.03, 1.62
5.44, 1.8
5.44, 1.8
5.44, 1.8
5.44, 1.8
6.51, 1.89
6.51, 1.89
7.64, 1.97
7.64, 1.97
8, 2
8, 2
8, 2
8, 2
8, 2
8, 2
(c) Key
Figure 312. Frame Capacity Schematic (mfactor), LS and CP, 16Story SMF RSA
330
Nonlinear Procedures
This section discusses the three primary component characteristics listed in Section 3.2.1 and computation
of the demand in the component for the nonlinear assessment procedures.
Stiffness, Strength, Acceptance Criteria, and Demand
Component characteristics follow that outlined previously for the linear procedures. Although component
stiffness is the primary characteristic in linear procedures, component strength is of equal importance in
nonlinear procedures.
The stiffnesses of all members and connections for nonlinear assessment follow ASCE 41 5.4.2.2.2 for
the NSP and 5.4.2.2.3 for the NDP. The strength of all members and connections for nonlinear assessment
follow ASCE 41 5.4.2.3.3 for the NSP and 5.4.2.3.4 for the NDP. The same analytical model is used for
both the NSP and NDPsee 3.1.3.2.
Compound elements with elastic and inelastic components are used for constructing all members in
PERFORM3D. Elastic stiffness and strength characteristics for each component follow that outlined for
the linear procedures. Nonlinear components include the RBS beamtocolumn connection modeled as a
beam flexural hinge, the column flexural hinge modeled with axialmoment (PM) interaction, and the panel
zone modeled using the Krawinkler model (Krawinkler 1978). Figure 313 illustrates the analytical model
of a beamtocolumn subassembly for nonlinear assessment procedures. In the figure, Default End Zones
are modeled with a flexural rigidity factor of two; a higher value is potentially too rigid to capture flexural
deformations within the joint region. Detailed information concerning all aspects of the analytical model
for nonlinear analysis can be found in PERFORM3D Components and Elements (CSI 2011c).
The acceptance criteria in ASCE 41 for FR beamtocolumn connections are derived from the results of the
SAC project (see FEMA 351 (FEMA 2000b) and FEMA 355D (FEMA 2000c)). Therefore, plastic rotation
is measured at the column face and the acceptance criteria include all effects inherent in the tested
assemblies (e.g., panel zone and column yielding). This can be problematic when distinguishing between
panel zone, beam, and column yielding effects. As the plastic rotation limits specified in ASCE 41 are
average values for the tested assembly classes, it seems appropriate to separate yielding effects in a
structural model. Therefore, beam and column hinge components and panel zone yielding components are
individually modeled for nonlinear analysis in this study. Further, acceptance criteria for RBS beamto
column connections do not address composite action with the floor slab, thus beam properties used in the
nonlinear analysis model do not include this effect.
Flexural plasticity in beams and beamcolumns is represented by nonlinear momentcurvature (MC)
relationships which in turn are based on momentchord rotation (MR) relationships provided by ASCE 41
Table 56. This shift in basis highlights a discrepancy between ASCE 41 5.4.2.2.22 and the prescribed
acceptance criteria. Conversion between plastic rotation and plastic curvature is done using a defined plastic
hinge length, lp. An MC hinge is preferred in lieu of an MR hinge, as yield rotation, y, specified in ASCE
41 can lead to inconsistencies when beam models include rigid end offsets and when hinges are modeled
away from the column faces. Further, ASCE 41 does not provide guidance on an appropriate beam length,
lb (ASCE 41 Equation 51). Theoretically, there is no difference between an MC hinge and an MR hinge
331
model as long as the conversion procedure for all nonlinear model parameters between the two is
maintained. PM interaction effects on a momentcurvature hinge are included in the analytical model
(discussed subsequently).
Section AA
MomentCurvature
PMM Hinge
Plastic
Hinge, lp
= dc
Panel Zone
MomentCurvature Hinge
(from dummy inelastic beam)
Default
End Zone
node
Default
End Zone
Plastic
Hinge, lp
= dc
b/2
Plastic Hinge, lp = b
Elastic
Column,
EIc
Inelastic Beam
Reduced beam sections are modeled within the beam member as elastic prismatic beam elements using the
geometric crosssection properties at the outer twothirds of the RBS. An MC hinge is placed at the center
of the RBS with a plastic hinge length equal to the length of the RBS, b. Plastic rotation parameters
modeling the backbone curve of the FR beamtocolumn connection are taken from ASCE 41 Table 56.
These values are converted to plastic curvature and subsequently adjusted from application at the column
face to the center of the RBS and other FR connection adjustments discussed next. Stiffness and strength
degradation are modeled based on calibrating the PERFORM3D MODEL with experimental test data (see
Figure 314PERFORM3D response is presented as Analysis). Intermediate anchor points defining the
full backbone curve are determined from calibration with experimental test data (see Figure 314 and Figure
32). The ultimate flexural strength of the MC hinge is taken as CprMCE in accordance with AISC 358
Cpr is defined in AISC 358. The residual strength ratio (c in ASCE 41 Table 56) is normalized to the yield
strength, MCE, not the ultimate strength as required in PERFORM3D.
The acceptance criteria for beamtocolumn connections (flexural hinge is located within the connection)
are taken from Fully Restrained Moment Connections in ASCE 41 Table 56 and are dependent on
connection detailing, panel zone strength in a balanced yield condition, and member and crosssection
slenderness (see ASCE 41 5.4.2.4.3, 4.1 to 4.4). These reduction factors are also applied to the plastic
rotation values defining the backbone curve. This is done because the CP acceptance criteria for a primary
332
FR connection was taken to match asee Figure 32, and therefore any connection configuration that
affects the value for a also affects the acceptance criteria. Similarly, the acceptance criteria are converted
to plastic curvature and the application point is adjusted to the center of the RBS. Acceptance criteria for a
beam hinge should also be used to verify the performance of the plastic hinge in the RBS; however, as
discussed previously, it will not control unless evaluating the IO SPL. Therefore, this secondary check is
not performed in this study. Expanded commentary on beamtocolumn connection versus beam hinge
acceptance criteria is needed in ASCE 41, as well as a discussion clarifying the reductions to the plastic
rotation values defining the backbone curve and acceptance criteria.
Specimen DB4 (Engelhardt et al. 1998)
40000
Test Data
Analysis
Backbone
30000
W36194
20000
10000
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
8
6
4
2
PERFORM3D flexural section strength flags (used to verify a design strength at a given location) are
placed at the column faces and at midspan of the beam to verify acceptable design of the beams and beam
tocolumn connections. Similarly, shear section strength flags are placed at the column faces and at the
center of the RBS to verify acceptable design of the beamtocolumn connections. These section strength
flags are modified as needed for crosssection geometry, member strengths (does not typically control
beams), and designassessment criteria prescribed in ASCE 41.
Panel zones are explicitly modeled at all beamtocolumn joints using the Krawinkler model. This model
uses the forcedeformation relationship intrinsic in the design equations prescribed in AISC 360 (see Figure
315PERFORM3D response is presented as Analysis). However, the yield stress in the panel zone
model is taken as 0.55Fye in ASCE 41 in lieu of 0.6Fy as used in design. Figure 315 shows the range of
the expected demands on the panel zones (anchored to a shear strain ductility, / y, of 4). This range is
small because the probable flexural strength of the connection is used to check the panel zone strength in
design, and this connection strength is associated with Collapse Prevention (CP) of the beamtocolumn
connection in ASCE 41. Only when an FR connection is strained past the CP level will the panel zone
deform outside this range; nevertheless, the CP acceptance criteria for a panel zone in ASCE 41 is three
times a shear strain ductility of 4.
333
900
600
300
0
300
range of applicability
1200
600
900
Test Data
Analysis
1200
32 28 24 20 16 12 8 4
12 16 20 24 28 32
Frame columns (i.e., beamcolumns) are modeled similar to beams discussed previously, except that
flexural PMM MC hinges that capture the combined effects of axial force and biaxial moments are placed
near the joint region boundaries (see Figure 313). The plastic hinge length is assumed to be equal to the
depth of the column, dc. Outofplane moments are small relative to the inplane moments in the SFRS
members because each SFRS is an isolated planar frame in the direction of loading. Plastic rotation
parameters of the flexural PMM hinges are taken from columns in ASCE 41 Table 56 and converted to
plastic curvature (no adjustment for hinge location is needed). Criteria for flexural hinges based on member
buckling strengths can be complex and problematic in capturing the inplane nonlinear flexure behavior.
For example, yield rotation, y, for a column is based on section strength, Pye, while modeling parameters
and acceptance criteria (function of y) are based on member strength, PCL, without regard to the plane of
buckling. ASCE 4113 took the first step in resolving some issues concerning steel columns by permitting
the modeling parameters to be determined using P / PCL in the plane of buckling. Still, PM interaction
curves still require some clarification and guidance. In terms of assessment, ASCE 41 does not explicitly
address column hinges near the columntobase connections of a frame (similar to a beamtocolumn
connection).
In this study, modeling and acceptance criteria for the beamcolumn flexural hinges are taken as those
provided for columns in ASCE 41 Table 56. The PM interaction effect on the inplane flexural strength
of a column hinge, MCEx, where x denotes the inplane bending axis, is modeled by the section strength of
the member (i.e., yield surface) using P / Pye in ASCE 41 Equation 54 (repeated below as Equation (315);
see Figure 316, Figure 318, and Figure 319). PM interaction relationships provided in PERFORM3D
for the yield surfaces of MC hinges in beamcolumns are calibrated to approximate this curve as illustrated
in Figure 319.
334
P
M pe, x
M CEx 1.18M pe, x 1
Pye
(315)
ASCE 41 Equation 54 is based on plastic design theory and applicable for the inplane section strength
(strongaxis bending) of a wide flange section. AISC 360 Equation H11 can also be applied for computing
the inplane section strength by using P / Pye in lieu of Pr / Pc as defined in AISC 360. Plastic design theory
also gives the outofplane section strength (weakaxis bending, with y denoting the outofplane bending
axis) of a wide flange section as Equation (316).
M CEy
P 2
1.19 M pe , y 1
M pe , y
Pye
(316)
PM interaction effect on the plastic rotation parameters and acceptance criteria of a column hinge is
modeled by member strength using PCL, computed for buckling about any axis or failure mode independent
of the effect it may have on the inplane flexure response of the column hinge (see Figure 316).
First, ASCE 41 requires a column (i.e., flexural hinge in the column) to be forcecontrolled for flexure when
P / PCL > 0.5 for the nonlinear procedures and references the same equation used for linear assessment. This
can be extremely problematic as separate strengths and interaction equations create discontinuities that
cannot be effectively addressed in analysis software (see Figure 316). This elastic interaction equation is
neglected in this study for nonlinear assessment and the hinge model obeys ASCE 41 Equation 54
independent of PCL. ASCE 41 Equation 512 is more applicable for checking member stability than defining
the section yield surface; Equation (317) rearranges ASCE 41 Equation 512 in terms of the moment
strength.
PCL
M CE M CL 1
(317)
Second, flexural hinge model parameters and associated acceptance criteria are a function of the axial load
ratio P / PCL. Provisions for this interaction in ASCE 41, however, create a discontinuity in the curve, as
shown in Figure 317, which cannot be effectively addressed in analysis software. PERFORM3D provides
a simplified curve to model the variation in acceptance criteria with axial force, also shown in Figure 317.
The adopted curves in this study are conservative for P / PCL 0.2. Further, because of constraints on PM
hinge models in PERFORM3D, the model parameters (a in ASCE 41 Table 56 plus the elastic component
as shown in Figure 317, a plus elastic = DL in PERFORM3Dsee Figure 32 for a and DL) do not
coincide for P / PCL > 0.2. A column hinge with high axial load can reach its peak strength (a plus elastic =
CP in this case) in regards to the provisions of ASCE 41 yet still be able to maintain its flexural strength.
In general, column hinges are not expected to be significantly strained; however, demands may affect the
performance of base hinges, which can have detrimental effects on the system upon loss of strength. More
detailed information can be found in the PERFORM3D User Guide (CSI 2011d) and PERFORM3D
Components and Elements (CSI 2011c). Lastly, it is of questionable validity to allow a primary column
335
component in a SFRS to have acceptance criteria based on a secondary component when based on a function
of P / PCL as was mentioned earlier
1.0
0.8
P / Pye
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
M / MCE
Figure 316. Inplane Flexural Hinge Yield Surface Model (Including ForceControlled Response)
4000
3500
3000
CP
2500
LS
2000
1500
1000
W18175
L = 18'0"
PCL = Pn,y = 0.6 Pye
500
0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
P / PCL
Figure 317. Variation in Acceptance Criteria and Hinge Model for Axial Force
336
Primary Component
Life Safety
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
discontinuity in
interaction curve
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
0
.4
0.0
0.
6
0.
8
1.
0
Notes:
1. Knowledge Factor, , taken as unity.
2. p = y values shown are not reduced to reflect compactness requirements.
3. BeamColumn with PUF / PCL < 0.1 can be treated as a beam.
Rotation Ductility
Limits, (y + p) / y
Figure 318. PM Interaction on Plastic Rotation, LS Acceptance Criteria (Primary Component)
The ultimate flexural strength of the MC hinge is taken as 1.1 times MCE at P = 0. This flexural strength
increase is held constant for all values of axial force in PERFORM3D. The residual strength ratio (c in
ASCE 41 Table 56) is normalized to the yield strength, MCE, at distinct P / PCL values (not P / Pye, which
is used to compute MCE) and not the ultimate strength as required in PERFORM3D.
The columntobase connection is modeled using an FR beamtocolumn connection model in PERFORM
3D. It is reasonable to adopt an FR connection model (such as an improved welded WUF connection) to
represent the base connection because doing so will provide a lowerbound estimate of the plastic rotations
angle compared to that given explicitly for a column hinge, as shown in Table 312. Future research is
needed to develop acceptance criteria and modeling parameters for columntobase connections, including
embedded connections.
Stability of a beamcolumn needs to be addressed in addition to capturing flexural plasticity. However,
ASCE 41 does not provide explicit provisions to check member stability when P / PCL 0.5 for nonlinear
337
procedures. When P / PCL > 0.5, ASCE 41 Equation 512 (primarily used for the linear procedures) can be
used, but is not recommended as discussed previously.
Table 312. Plastic Rotation Angles for Improved WUF and Column Hinge for a W18175
P=0
0.041
0.071
0.58
WUF AC
Column AC
Ratio
P = 0.1999PCL
0.038
0.065
0.58
P = 0.2PCL
0.031
0.053
0.58
P = 0.5PCL
0.0056
0.0097
0.58
In this study, section strength flags are applied to the frame columns as an indicator of member instability.
For inplane buckling and strong axis bending, a PM strength flag is placed at the ends of the column using
AISC 360 H1.3(a) for the interaction curve using Pn,x as Pc. This approach closely aligns with ASCE 41
Equations 510, 511, and 512. The inplane effective length of the column is taken as that computed for
design (i.e., adjusted K factor (see Chapter 2)). This is considered a conservative practice as the analysis
adjusts the stiffness matrix (only for material nonlinearity) at every time step and the leaning column effect
is explicitly included. However, geometric imperfections (system and member), residual stresses, and
epistemic uncertainties (i.e., factor) are not included in the mathematical model. Consequently, member
strengths based on the actual unbraced length (i.e., KLx = Lx) is of questionable validity, but so is using the
design value based on a vertical loadonly load combination. Research is needed concerning inplane
dynamic instability of inelastic members.
1.0
0.8
ASCE 41 InPlane Yield Surface
(Eq. 54)
AISC InPlane Yield Surface
(H11, Pn = Pye )
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
For outofplane buckling and strong axis bending, a PM strength flag is placed at the ends of the column
using AISC 360 H1.3(b) for the interaction curve and the effective length is taken as the actual unbraced
338
length (i.e., KLy = Ly). Adopting ASCE 41 Equations 510, 511, and 512 as an indicator of weakaxis
instability coupled with inplane bending can be highly conservative. PERFORM3D uses a single
continuous interaction curve as shown in Figure 320 which illustrates several interactions curves together
with the approximations from PERFORM3D. Similar to beams, section strengths are modified as needed
based on crosssection geometry, member strengths (commonly controls columns in compression), and
designassessment criteria prescribed in ASCE 41.
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
(H11, Pc = Pne,x )
(H11, Pc = Pne,y )
0.2
0.0
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
Figure 321 through Figure 326 provide the loadindependent acceptance criteriawith consideration of
forcecontrolled and deformationcontrolled classifications. These figures are referred to herein as Frame
Capacity Schematics. The two values given for a column represent the cases when PUF / PCL = 0.2 and 0.5,
adjusted for section compactness requirements. At PUF / PCL = 0.2, the interaction equation does not provide
the same value when PUF / PCL < 0.2, as seen for the linear procedures.
339
Sym. About
Column Hinges
CP T=B=5732, 1054
LS T=B=4368, 826
YD T=B=288, 194
Beam Hinges
CP L=2541, R=3117
LS L=1986, R=2423
YD L=R=207
Beam Hinges
CP L=3117
LS L=2423
YD L=207
Column Hinges
CP T=B=5247, 1030
LS T=B=4011, 808
YD T=B=275, 185
Column Hinges
CP T=B=5732, 1054
LS T=B=4368, 826
YD T=B=288, 194
Beam Hinges
CP L=R=2535
LS L=R=1978
YD L=R=197
Beam Hinges
CP L=2535
LS L=1978
YD L=197
Column Hinges
CP T=B=5247, 1030
LS T=B=4011, 808
YD T=B=275, 185
Column Hinges
CP T=B=5816, 1074
LS T=B=4440, 843
YD T=B=286, 193
Beam Hinges
CP L=R=2533
LS L=R=1976
YD L=R=194
Beam Hinges
CP L=2533
LS L=1976
YD L=194
Column Hinges
CP T=B=5069, 1018
LS T=B=3877, 799
YD T=B=272, 183
Column Hinges
CP T=B=5816, 1074
LS T=B=4440, 843
YD T=B=286, 193
Beam Hinges
CP L=R=2533
LS L=R=1976
YD L=R=194
Beam Hinges
CP L=2533
LS L=1976
YD L=194
Column Hinges
CP T=B=5069, 1018
LS T=B=3877, 799
YD T=B=272, 183
Roof
(ELEV = 60 ft.)
4th Floor
(ELEV = 46 ft.)
3rd Floor
(ELEV = 32 ft.)
2nd Floor
(ELEV = 18 ft.)
Panel Zones
CP 32544
LS 24408
YD 2712
Sym. About
Column Hinges
CP T=B=5722, 1066
LS T=B=4357, 834
YD T=B=290, 195
Beam Hinges
CP L=2541, R=3117
LS L=1986, R=2423
YD L=R=207
Beam Hinges
CP L=3117
LS L=2423
YD L=207
Column Hinges
CP T=B=5521, 1068
LS T=B=4218, 837
YD T=B=281, 189
Column Hinges
CP T=B=5722, 1066
LS T=B=4357, 834
YD T=B=290, 195
Beam Hinges
CP L=2541, R=3117
LS L=1986, R=2423
YD L=R=207
Beam Hinges
CP L=3117
LS L=2423
YD L=207
Column Hinges
CP T=B=5521, 1068
LS T=B=4218, 837
YD T=B=281, 189
Column Hinges
CP T=B=5722, 1066
LS T=B=4357, 834
YD T=B=290, 195
Beam Hinges
CP L=2541, R=3117
LS L=1986, R=2423
YD L=R=207
Beam Hinges
CP L=3117
LS L=2423
YD L=207
Column Hinges
CP T=B=5521, 1068
LS T=B=4218, 837
YD T=B=281, 189
Column Hinges
CP T=B=5722, 1066
LS T=B=4357, 834
YD T=B=290, 195
Beam Hinges
CP L=2541, R=3117
LS L=1986, R=2423
YD L=R=207
Beam Hinges
CP L=3117
LS L=2423
YD L=207
Column Hinges
CP T=B=5521, 1068
LS T=B=4218, 837
YD T=B=281, 189
Roof
(ELEV = 60 ft.)
4th Floor
(ELEV = 46 ft.)
3rd Floor
(ELEV = 32 ft.)
2nd Floor
(ELEV = 18 ft.)
Panel Zones
CP 32544
LS 24408
YD 2712
340
Sym. About
Column Hinges
CP T=B=3945, 712
LS T=B=3024, 569
YD T=B=237, 159
Beam Hinges
CP L=2543, R=3119
LS L=1987, R=2425
YD L=R=207
Beam Hinges
CP L=3119
LS L=2425
YD L=207
Column Hinges
CP T=B=3524, 668
LS T=B=2704, 534
YD T=B=222, 149
Column Hinges
CP T=B=3945, 712
LS T=B=3024, 569
YD T=B=237, 159
Beam Hinges
CP L=2543, R=3119
LS L=1987, R=2425
YD L=R=207
Beam Hinges
CP L=3119
LS L=2425
YD L=207
Column Hinges
CP T=B=3524, 668
LS T=B=2704, 534
YD T=B=222, 149
Column Hinges
CP T=B=3582, 673
LS T=B=2748, 537
YD T=B=224, 150
Beam Hinges
CP L=2233, R=2741
LS L=1743, R=2129
YD L=R=176
Beam Hinges
CP L=2741
LS L=2129
YD L=176
Column Hinges
CP T=B=3134, 639
LS T=B=2409, 511
YD T=B=212, 143
Column Hinges
CP T=B=3582, 673
LS T=B=2748, 537
YD T=B=224, 150
Beam Hinges
CP L=2233, R=2741
LS L=1743, R=2129
YD L=R=176
Beam Hinges
CP L=2741
LS L=2129
YD L=176
Column Hinges
CP T=B=3134, 639
LS T=B=2409, 511
YD T=B=212, 143
Column Hinges
CP T=B=3468, 664
LS T=B=2662, 530
YD T=B=221, 148
Beam Hinges
CP L=2226, R=2733
LS L=1736, R=2121
YD L=R=172
Beam Hinges
CP L=2733
LS L=2121
YD L=172
Column Hinges
CP T=B=3048, 633
LS T=B=2344, 505
YD T=B=210, 141
Column Hinges
CP T=B=3468, 664
LS T=B=2662, 530
YD T=B=221, 148
Beam Hinges
CP L=2226, R=2733
LS L=1736, R=2121
YD L=R=172
Beam Hinges
CP L=2733
LS L=2121
YD L=172
Column Hinges
CP T=B=3048, 633
LS T=B=2344, 505
YD T=B=210, 141
Column Hinges
CP T=B=3391, 658
LS T=B=2604, 526
YD T=B=219, 147
Beam Hinges
CP L=R=2733
LS L=R=2121
YD L=R=172
Beam Hinges
CP L=2733
LS L=2121
YD L=172
Column Hinges
CP T=B=3048, 633
LS T=B=2344, 505
YD T=B=210, 141
Column Hinges
CP T=B=3391, 658
LS T=B=2604, 526
YD T=B=219, 147
Beam Hinges
CP L=R=2733
LS L=R=2121
YD L=R=172
Beam Hinges
CP L=2733
LS L=2121
YD L=172
Column Hinges
CP T=B=3048, 633
LS T=B=2344, 505
YD T=B=210, 141
Roof
8th Floor
7th Floor
(ELEV = 88 ft.)
6th Floor
(ELEV = 74 ft.)
5th Floor
(ELEV = 60 ft.)
4th Floor
(ELEV = 46 ft.)
3rd Floor
(ELEV = 32 ft.)
2nd Floor
(ELEV = 18 ft.)
Panel Zones
CP T=B=32544
LS T=B=24408
YD T=B=2712
341
Figure 324. Frame Capacity Schematic (Inelastic), YD, LS, and CP, 8Story SMF RSA
342
Sym. About
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1904, 252
LS T=B=1472, 211
YD T=B=161, 108
Beam Hinges
CP L=2085, R=3125
LS L=1640, R=2429
YD L=R=207
Beam Hinges
CP L=3125
LS L=2429
YD L=207
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1815, 339
LS T=B=1405, 280
YD T=B=157, 106
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1904, 252
LS T=B=1472, 211
YD T=B=161, 108
Beam Hinges
CP L=2085, R=3125
LS L=1640, R=2429
YD L=R=207
Beam Hinges
CP L=3125
LS L=2429
YD L=207
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1815, 339
LS T=B=1405, 280
YD T=B=157, 106
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1857, 295
LS T=B=1437, 245
YD T=B=159, 107
Beam Hinges
CP L=1830, R=2747
LS L=1437, R=2133
YD L=R=176
Beam Hinges
CP L=2747
LS L=2133
YD L=176
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1681, 325
LS T=B=1302, 269
YD T=B=151, 102
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1857, 295
LS T=B=1437, 245
YD T=B=159, 107
Beam Hinges
CP L=1830, R=2747
LS L=1437, R=2133
YD L=R=176
Beam Hinges
CP L=2747
LS L=2133
YD L=176
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1681, 325
LS T=B=1302, 269
YD T=B=151, 102
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1815, 315
LS T=B=145, 280
YD T=B=157, 106
Beam Hinges
CP L=1992, R=2445
LS L=1556, R=1899
YD L=R=160
Beam Hinges
CP L=2445
LS L=1899
YD L=160
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1615, 321
LS T=B=1252, 266
YD T=B=149, 100
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1815, 315
LS T=B=145, 280
YD T=B=157, 106
Beam Hinges
CP L=1992, R=2445
LS L=1556, R=1899
YD L=R=160
Beam Hinges
CP L=2445
LS L=1899
YD L=160
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1615, 321
LS T=B=1252, 266
YD T=B=149, 100
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1785, 334
LS T=B=1382, 276
YD T=B=155, 104
Beam Hinges
CP L=1992, R=2445
LS L=1556, R=1899
YD L=R=160
Beam Hinges
CP L=2445
LS L=1899
YD L=160
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1615, 321
LS T=B=1252, 266
YD T=B=149, 100
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1785, 334
LS T=B=1382, 276
YD T=B=155, 104
Beam Hinges
CP L=1992, R=2445
LS L=1556, R=1899
YD L=R=160
Beam Hinges
CP L=2445
LS L=1899
YD L=160
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1615, 321
LS T=B=1252, 266
YD T=B=149, 100
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1701, 326
LS T=B=1318, 270
YD T=B=151, 102
Beam Hinges
CP L=1787, R=2192
LS L=1395, R=1702
YD L=R=144
Beam Hinges
CP L=2192
LS L=1702
YD L=144
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1615, 321
LS T=B=1252, 266
YD T=B=149, 100
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1701, 326
LS T=B=1318, 270
YD T=B=151, 102
Beam Hinges
CP L=1787, R=2192
LS L=1395, R=1702
YD L=R=144
Beam Hinges
CP L=2192
LS L=1702
YD L=144
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1615, 321
LS T=B=1252, 266
YD T=B=149, 100
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1650, 322
LS T=B=1279, 267
YD T=B=150, 101
Beam Hinges
CP L=1787, R=2192
LS L=1395, R=1702
YD L=R=144
Beam Hinges
CP L=2192
LS L=1702
YD L=144
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1615, 321
LS T=B=1252, 266
YD T=B=149, 100
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1650, 322
LS T=B=1279, 267
YD T=B=150, 101
Beam Hinges
CP L=1787, R=2192
LS L=1395, R=1702
YD L=R=144
Beam Hinges
CP L=2192
LS L=1702
YD L=144
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1615, 321
LS T=B=1252, 266
YD T=B=149, 100
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1571, 316
LS T=B=1218, 262
YD T=B=147, 99
Beam Hinges
CP L=1787, R=2192
LS L=1395, R=1702
YD L=R=144
Beam Hinges
CP L=2192
LS L=1702
YD L=144
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1535, 313
LS T=B=1191, 259
YD T=B=145, 98
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1571, 316
LS T=B=1218, 262
YD T=B=147, 99
Beam Hinges
CP L=1787, R=2192
LS L=1395, R=1702
YD L=R=144
Beam Hinges
CP L=2192
LS L=1702
YD L=144
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1535, 313
LS T=B=1191, 259
YD T=B=145, 98
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1395, 302
LS T=B=1085, 250
YD T=B=140, 94
Beam Hinges
CP L=1787, R=2192
LS L=1395, R=1702
YD L=R=144
Beam Hinges
CP L=2192
LS L=1702
YD L=144
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1535, 313
LS T=B=1191, 259
YD T=B=145, 98
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1395, 302
LS T=B=1085, 250
YD T=B=140, 94
Beam Hinges
CP L=1787, R=2192
LS L=1395, R=1702
YD L=R=144
Beam Hinges
CP L=2192
LS L=1702
YD L=144
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1535, 313
LS T=B=1191, 259
YD T=B=145, 98
Roof
16th Floor
15th Floor
14th Floor
13th Floor
12th Floor
11th Floor
10th Floor
9th Floor
8th Floor
7th Floor
(ELEV = 88 ft.)
6th Floor
(ELEV = 74 ft.)
5th Floor
(ELEV = 60 ft.)
4th Floor
(ELEV = 46 ft.)
3rd Floor
(ELEV = 32 ft.)
2nd Floor
(ELEV = 18 ft.)
Panel Zones
CP T=B=32544
LS T=B=24408
YD T=B=2712
Figure 325. Frame Capacity Schematic (Inelastic), YD, LS, and CP, 16Story SMF ELF
343
Sym. About
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1904, 263
LS T=B=1472, 218
YD T=B=161, 108
Beam Hinges
CP L=2085, R=3125
LS L=1640, R=2429
YD L=R=207
Beam Hinges
CP L=3125
LS L=2429
YD L=207
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1815, 357
LS T=B=1405, 293
YD T=B=157, 106
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1904, 263
LS T=B=1472, 218
YD T=B=161, 108
Beam Hinges
CP L=2085, R=3125
LS L=1640, R=2429
YD L=R=207
Beam Hinges
CP L=3125
LS L=2429
YD L=207
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1815, 357
LS T=B=1405, 293
YD T=B=157, 106
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1857, 309
LS T=B=1437, 255
YD T=B=159, 107
Beam Hinges
CP L=2085, R=3125
LS L=1640, R=2429
YD L=R=207
Beam Hinges
CP L=3125
LS L=2429
YD L=207
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1815, 357
LS T=B=1405, 293
YD T=B=157, 106
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1857, 309
LS T=B=1437, 255
YD T=B=159, 107
Beam Hinges
CP L=2085, R=3125
LS L=1640, R=2429
YD L=R=207
Beam Hinges
CP L=3125
LS L=2429
YD L=207
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1815, 357
LS T=B=1405, 293
YD T=B=157, 106
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1857, 309
LS T=B=1437, 255
YD T=B=159, 107
Beam Hinges
CP L=2237, R=2747
LS L=1746, R=2133
YD L=R=176
Beam Hinges
CP L=2747
LS L=2133
YD L=176
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1681, 342
LS T=B=1302, 281
YD T=B=151, 102
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1857, 309
LS T=B=1437, 255
YD T=B=159, 107
Beam Hinges
CP L=2237, R=2747
LS L=1746, R=2133
YD L=R=176
Beam Hinges
CP L=2747
LS L=2133
YD L=176
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1681, 342
LS T=B=1302, 281
YD T=B=151, 102
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1719, 323
LS T=B=1328, 266
YD T=B=155, 104
Beam Hinges
CP L=2237, R=2747
LS L=1746, R=2133
YD L=R=176
Beam Hinges
CP L=2747
LS L=2133
YD L=176
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1681, 342
LS T=B=1302, 281
YD T=B=151, 102
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1719, 323
LS T=B=1328, 266
YD T=B=155, 104
Beam Hinges
CP L=2237, R=2747
LS L=1746, R=2133
YD L=R=176
Beam Hinges
CP L=2747
LS L=2133
YD L=176
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1681, 342
LS T=B=1302, 281
YD T=B=151, 102
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1785, 351
LS T=B=1382, 289
YD T=B=155, 104
Beam Hinges
CP L=1992, R=2445
LS L=1556, R=1889
YD L=R=160
Beam Hinges
CP L=2445
LS L=1889
YD L=160
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1630, 338
LS T=B=1264, 278
YD T=B=159, 100
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1785, 351
LS T=B=1382, 289
YD T=B=155, 104
Beam Hinges
CP L=1992, R=2445
LS L=1556, R=1889
YD L=R=160
Beam Hinges
CP L=2445
LS L=1889
YD L=160
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1630, 338
LS T=B=1264, 278
YD T=B=159, 100
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1728, 345
LS T=B=1338, 284
YD T=B=152, 102
Beam Hinges
CP L=1631, R=2445
LS L=1281, R=1889
YD L=R=160
Beam Hinges
CP L=2445
LS L=1889
YD L=160
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1630, 338
LS T=B=1264, 278
YD T=B=159, 100
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1728, 345
LS T=B=1338, 284
YD T=B=152, 102
Beam Hinges
CP L=1631, R=2445
LS L=1281, R=1889
YD L=R=160
Beam Hinges
CP L=2445
LS L=1889
YD L=160
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1630, 338
LS T=B=1264, 278
YD T=B=159, 100
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1681, 342
LS T=B=1302, 281
YD T=B=151, 102
Beam Hinges
CP L=1462, R=2192
LS L=1148, R=1702
YD L=R=144
Beam Hinges
CP L=2192
LS L=1702
YD L=144
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1535, 329
LS T=B=1191, 271
YD T=B=145, 98
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1681, 342
LS T=B=1302, 281
YD T=B=151, 102
Beam Hinges
CP L=1462, R=2192
LS L=1148, R=1702
YD L=R=144
Beam Hinges
CP L=2192
LS L=1702
YD L=144
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1535, 329
LS T=B=1191, 271
YD T=B=145, 98
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1681, 342
LS T=B=1302, 281
YD T=B=151, 102
Beam Hinges
CP L=1462, R=2192
LS L=1148, R=1702
YD L=R=144
Beam Hinges
CP L=2192
LS L=1702
YD L=144
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1535, 329
LS T=B=1191, 271
YD T=B=145, 98
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1571, 333
LS T=B=1218, 274
YD T=B=147, 99
Beam Hinges
CP L=1787, R=2192
LS L=1395, R=1702
YD L=R=144
Beam Hinges
CP L=2192
LS L=1702
YD L=144
Column Hinges
CP T=B=1535, 329
LS T=B=1191, 271
YD T=B=145, 98
Roof
16th Floor
15th Floor
14th Floor
13th Floor
12th Floor
11th Floor
10th Floor
9th Floor
8th Floor
7th Floor
(ELEV = 88 ft.)
6th Floor
(ELEV = 74 ft.)
5th Floor
(ELEV = 60 ft.)
4th Floor
(ELEV = 46 ft.)
3rd Floor
(ELEV = 32 ft.)
2nd Floor
(ELEV = 18 ft.)
Panel Zones
CP T=B=32544
LS T=B=24408
YD T=B=2712
Figure 326. Frame Capacity Schematic (inelastic), YD, LS and CP, 16Story SMF RSA
344
22
345
3.2.2.1.1.1
Figure 327 and Figure 328 provide the DCRN and loaddependent mfactor values for the ELF
and RSA designs, respectively, for the LSP at the BSE1 EHL. In these figures, DCRN values
greater than unity are highlighted in red and underlined. DCR values, as defined by ASCE 41, can
be obtained by multiplying DCRN by m and , see Eq. 36.
Figure 329 provides the maximum axial compression demands, PUF, in the exterior column lines
for various analysis methods and the column capacity, PCL.
All component actions satisfy the LS BPL acceptance criteria except for the exterior beamtocolumn
connections in the RSAdesigned frame on the second and third floors. These connection failures are
primarily due to reduced mfactors as a result of the FR connection modifiers for panel zone strength and
clear spantodepth limitations. Assessment results for the panel zones all remained small compared to
unity. This suggests that design rules and conventional practice (e.g., increase column sizes to offset the
use of doubler plates) can produce strong panel zones with regard to ASCE 41 criteria, which can adversely
affect the beamtocolumn connection acceptance criteria. Current steel design practice, however, does not
enforce a balanced yield condition between a beam hinge and the adjacent panel zone. Moreover, it is not
logical that the FR connection reduction factors create a step function in performance. The 20 percent
reduction between the interior connections in the ELFdesigned frame on the second and third floors in
Figure 327(b) is due to the change in the average storyheight, h, when computing the panel zone
demandssee ASCE 41 5.4.2.4.24.2. Figure 327(b) and Figure 328(b) show that the frame columns
are deformationcontrolled for flexure.
0.53
0.53
0.14
0.06
0.53
0.16
0.05
0.69
0.23
0.69
0.68
0.26
0.08
0.82
0.27
0.65
0.64
0.30
0.09
0.88
0.28
0.87
0.85
0.31
0.18
0.11
0.13
0.35
(a) DCRN
2.81
2.81
2.82
8.00
6.00
2.83
8.00
2.83
2.84
8.00
6.00
2.85
8.00
3.56
3.57
8.00
6.00
2.85
8.00
2.85
2.85
8.00
6.00
8.00
5.73
5.73
6.00
5.60
(b) mfactors
Figure 327. LSP Assessment Results, 4Story SMF ELF, BSE1 LS
346
(c) Key
0.55
0.43
0.15
0.07
0.42
0.20
0.07
0.84
0.21
0.66
0.64
0.27
0.09
1.05
0.25
0.82
0.80
0.33
0.11
1.14
0.28
0.88
0.85
0.36
0.21
0.12
0.15
0.43
2.81
3.51
3.52
8.00
6.00
2.81
8.00
3.51
3.52
8.00
6.00
2.81
8.00
3.51
3.52
8.00
6.00
2.81
8.00
3.51
3.52
8.00
6.00
8.00
5.63
5.63
5.63
4.77
(a) DCRN
(b) mfactors
(c) Key
Roof
Roof
PUF (J = Max[min DCR,2])
PUF (J = 1)
PUF (J = 1)
Pmax (NDP)
Pmax (NDP)
P (NSP)
Pu,Omega (ASCE 7, AISC 341)
P (NSP)
Pu,Omega (ASCE 7, AISC 341)
Pu,Capacity Design
Floor
Floor
Pu,Capacity Design
3
Base
Base
0
300
600
900
1200
1500
1800
2100
300
600
900
1200
1500
1800
2100
(a) ELF
(b) RSA
Figure 329. LSP Assessment Results, Compression in Exterior Columns, 4Story SMF, BSE1
3.2.2.1.1.2
347
All component actions satisfy the CP BPL acceptance criteria except for a few beamtocolumn connections
in the ELF and RSAdesigned frames on the second and third floors. As identified previously in
3.2.2.1.1.1, these connection failures are primarily due to reduced mfactors as a result of the FR
connection modifiers for panel zone strength and clear spantodepth limitations. Assessment results for the
panel zones all remained small compared to unitysee 3.2.2.1.1.1. Figure 330(b) and Figure 331(b)
show that the frame columns are deformationcontrolled for flexure.
0.62
0.62
0.15
0.06
0.61
0.17
0.05
0.81
0.25
0.80
0.79
0.28
0.08
0.96
0.29
0.76
0.75
0.33
0.09
1.03
0.31
1.02
1.00
0.34
0.18
0.11
0.14
0.40
3.55
3.55
3.56
11.00
8.00
3.58
11.00
3.58
3.58
11.00
8.00
3.60
11.00
4.50
4.50
11.00
8.00
3.60
11.00
3.60
3.60
11.00
8.00
11.00
7.66
7.66
8.00
6.76
(a) DCRN
(b) mfactors
(c) Key
0.64
0.50
0.17
0.07
0.49
0.21
0.07
0.99
0.23
0.77
0.75
0.30
0.10
1.23
0.28
0.96
0.93
0.36
0.12
1.34
0.30
1.03
0.99
0.39
0.23
0.12
0.15
0.47
(a) DCRN
3.55
4.44
4.44
11.00
8.00
3.55
11.00
4.44
4.44
11.00
8.00
3.55
11.00
4.44
4.44
11.00
8.00
3.55
11.00
4.44
4.44
11.00
8.00
11.00
7.53
7.53
7.53
5.76
(b) mfactors
Figure 331. LSP Assessment Results, 4Story SMF RSA, BSE2 CP
348
(c) Key
Roof
Roof
PUF (J = Max[min DCR,2])
PUF (J = 1)
PUF (J = 1)
Pmax (NDP)
Pmax (NDP)
P (NSP)
Pu,Omega (ASCE 7, AISC 341)
P (NSP)
Pu,Omega (ASCE 7, AISC 341)
Pu,Capacity Design
Floor
Floor
Pu,Capacity Design
3
Base
Base
0
300
600
900
1200
1500
1800
2100
300
600
900
1200
1500
1800
2100
(a) ELF
(b) RSA
Figure 332. LSP Assessment Results, Compression in Exterior Columns, 4Story SMF, BSE2
3.2.2.1.2
3.2.2.1.2.1
349
0.45
0.46
0.12
0.06
0.45
0.13
0.05
0.56
0.18
0.56
0.55
0.21
0.07
0.66
0.21
0.53
0.52
0.24
0.08
0.75
0.24
0.74
0.72
0.27
0.16
0.09
0.12
0.31
2.81
2.81
2.82
8.00
6.00
2.83
8.00
2.83
2.84
8.00
6.00
2.85
8.00
3.56
3.57
8.00
6.00
2.85
8.00
2.85
2.85
8.00
6.00
8.00
5.73
5.73
6.00
5.89
(a) DCRN
(b) mfactors
(c) Key
0.47
0.37
0.13
0.06
0.36
0.17
0.06
0.69
0.17
0.54
0.53
0.22
0.08
0.85
0.20
0.67
0.65
0.27
0.10
0.97
0.24
0.76
0.73
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.14
0.38
(a) DCRN
2.81
3.51
3.52
8.00
6.00
2.81
8.00
3.51
3.52
8.00
6.00
2.81
8.00
3.51
3.52
8.00
6.00
2.81
8.00
3.51
3.52
8.00
6.00
8.00
5.63
5.63
5.63
5.05
(b) mfactors
Figure 334. LDP Assessment Results, 4Story SMF RSA, BSE1 LS
350
(c) Key
Roof
Roof
PUF (J = Max[min DCR,2])
PUF (J = 1)
PUF (J = 1)
Pmax (NDP)
Pmax (NDP)
P (NSP)
Pu,Omega (ASCE 7, AISC 341)
P (NSP)
Pu,Omega (ASCE 7, AISC 341)
Pu,Capacity Design
Floor
Floor
Pu,Capacity Design
3
Base
Base
0
300
600
900
1200
1500
1800
2100
300
600
900
1200
1500
1800
2100
(a) ELF
(b) RSA
Figure 335. LDP Assessment Results, Compression in Exterior Columns, 4Story SMF, BSE1
3.2.2.1.2.2
351
0.53
0.53
0.13
0.06
0.52
0.15
0.05
0.66
0.20
0.65
0.65
0.23
0.08
0.78
0.23
0.61
0.61
0.26
0.09
0.88
0.26
0.87
0.85
0.29
0.18
0.11
0.13
0.37
3.55
3.55
3.56
11.00
8.00
3.58
11.00
3.58
3.58
11.00
8.00
3.60
11.00
4.50
4.50
11.00
8.00
3.60
11.00
3.60
3.60
11.00
8.00
11.00
7.66
7.66
8.00
7.09
(a) DCRN
(b) mfactors
(c) Key
0.55
0.43
0.14
0.07
0.41
0.18
0.06
0.80
0.18
0.63
0.61
0.24
0.09
0.99
0.22
0.78
0.75
0.29
0.11
1.14
0.26
0.88
0.85
0.33
0.21
0.12
0.15
0.46
3.55
4.44
4.44
11.00
8.00
3.55
11.00
4.44
4.44
11.00
8.00
3.55
11.00
4.44
4.44
11.00
8.00
3.55
11.00
4.44
4.44
11.00
8.00
11.00
7.53
7.53
7.53
6.00
(a) DCRN
(b) mfactors
(c) Key
Roof
Roof
PUF (J = Max[min DCR,2])
PUF (J = 1)
PUF (J = 1)
Pmax (NDP)
Pmax (NDP)
P (NSP)
Pu,Omega (ASCE 7, AISC 341)
P (NSP)
Pu,Omega (ASCE 7, AISC 341)
Pu,Capacity Design
Floor
Floor
Pu,Capacity Design
3
Base
Base
0
300
600
900
1200
1500
1800
2100
300
600
900
1200
1500
(a) ELF
(b) RSA
Figure 338. LDP Assessment Results, Compression in Exterior Columns, 4Story SMF, BSE2
352
1800
2100
3.2.2.1.3
T1
1.81
2.19
K1
101.1
67.6
y
8.9
8.4
Vy
891
570
Ke
100.6
67.7
Te
1.82
2.18
h
1.09
1.12
peak
21.9
15.3
Vpeak
967.7
637.3
W
5172
5136
Cm
1.00
1.00
C0
1.28
1.28
Table 314. NSP Analysis Parameters, 4Story SMF BSE2 CP (kip, inch)
Design
ELF
RSA
Sa
0.50
0.43
R
2.90
3.86
C1
1.00
1.00
C2
1.00
1.00
t
20.6
25.5
Vt
967.7
579.5
d
20.6
15.3
P
0.06
0.15
0.28
0.20
0.01
0.01
0.06
0.05
Rmax
7.61
9.33
R Rmax
OK
OK
Rmax
9.46
9.33
R Rmax
OK
OK
Table 315. NSP Analysis Parameters 4Story SMF BSE1 LS (kip, inch)
Design
ELF
RSA
Sa
0.33
0.29
R
1.93
2.57
C1
1.00
1.00
C2
1.00
1.00
t
13.8
17.0
Vt
945.4
636.6
d
13.8
15.3
353
P
0.11
0.15
0.18
0.20
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.05
1.1
1.7
2.2
2.8
3.3
3.9
4.4
5.0
5.6
0.23
1100
0.21
1000
0.19
(20.6,967.7)
(8.9,891.0)
900
0.17
800
0.15
700
0.14
B
Pt. A: 3 hinges reach CP on 1st Floor
Pt. B: Remaining 3 hinges reach CP on 1st Floor
Pt. C: 3 hinges reach CP on 2nd Floor
600
500
0.12
0.10
(36.3,534.6)
400
0.08
300
0.06
ELF (FirstOrder)
ELF (SecondOrder)
ELF Idealized Backbone
200
1200
0.0
0.04
100
0.02
0.00
0
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
5.0
5.6
0.23
0.6
1.1
1.7
2.2
2.8
3.3
3.9
1100
0.21
RSA (FirstOrder)
RSA (SecondOrder)
RSA Idealized Backbone
1000
4.4
0.19
900
0.18
800
0.16
700
0.14
(15.3,637.3)
600
(8.4,570.0)
500
0.12
B
0.10
400
0.08
300
(37.6,342.0)
200
0.06
0.04
100
0.02
0.00
0
12
16
20
24
28
32
354
36
40
1200
3.0%
2.5%
1st Story
2nd Story
3rd Story
4th Story
Roof
2.0%
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
3.0%
2.5%
1st Story
2nd Story
3rd Story
4th Story
Roof
2.0%
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
355
2.0%
Of particular interest in the pushover curves is the large disparity between the peak base shears developed
in the ELF and RSAdesigned buildings (RSA / ELF = 637 / 968 = 0.66), a 34 percent change. At first
glance, this is greater than the 15 percent difference in design base shears allowed by ASCE 7. Upon further
inspection, it can be reasoned that the primary contribution to this disparity is due to the increase in strength
provided to the ELFdesigned frame to satisfy drift provisions in ASCE 7 (i.e., 15 percent plus additional
strength)see NSP discussion in the 8story results for more information.
Figure 343 illustrates which frame columns are forcecontrolled for flexure for both the NSP and NDP; all
flexural actions are deformationcontrolled in these frames. Figure 344 through Figure 347 illustrate the
DCRN values if greater than unity for the ELF and RSAdesigned frames at the target displacement for the
LS BPL at the BSE1 EHL and CP BPL at the BSE2 EHL. These figures illustrate demands when the
system is loaded to the right. The only performance concern observed is the exterior beamtocolumn
connections on the second floor in the RSAdesigned frame at the BSE2. As discussed previously in the
linear assessment sections, the acceptance criteria of these components are impacted by the FR connection
modifiers.
B
Sym. About
E
Roof
(ELEV = 60 ft.)
4th Fl o or
(ELEV = 46 ft.)
3rd Floor
(ELEV = 32 ft.)
2nd Floor
(ELEV = 18 ft.)
Figure 343. Schematic of Flexural Actions in Columns, 4Story SMF (NSP and NDP)
356
Figure 344. NSP Assessment Results, 4Story SMF ELF, BSE1 LS (+push to right)
E
Roof
(ELEV = 60 ft.)
DCRN 1.0
4th Floor
(ELEV = 46 ft.)
3rd Floor
(ELEV = 32 ft.)
2nd Floor
(ELEV = 18 ft.)
Figure 345. NSP Assessment Results, 4Story SMF RSA, BSE1 LS (+push to right)
Figure 346. NSP Assessment Results, 4Story SMF ELF, BSE2 CP (+push to right)
357
Figure 347. NSP Assessment Results, 4Story SMF RSA, BSE2 CP (+push to right)
3.2.2.1.4
The earthquake record set used to assess the EW direction of MC4 is shown in Appendix A. For the ELF
design, the analysis successfully completed for all 14 records at the BSE1 and BSE2 EHL. For the RSA
design, the analysis successfully completed for all 14 records at the BSE1 EHL; however, four analyses
did not complete at the BSE2 EHL due to excessive lateral drift. Maximum axial compression force in the
exterior column lines from the record set are shown previously in the linear assessment sections.
Figure 348 through Figure 351 show the performance of the beam hinges (i.e., beamtocolumn
connections) at the BSE1 (LS BPL) and BSE2 (CP BPL) for the ELF and RSAdesigned frames,
respectively. The results from the LSP, LDP, and NSP (loaded to the right) are included in the figures.
Comparison discussions between the various procedures are addressed subsequently. As is evident from
the figures, the ELFdesigned frame performs better than the RSAdesigned frame. Results for the RSAdesigned frame indicate that the exterior beamtocolumn connections have difficulty satisfying the CP
BPL acceptance criteria at the BSE2 EHL (primarily based on mean response). In contrast to the mean
response, the median response generally indicates better performance because it is less influenced by large
deformations resulting from component strength loss potentially resulting in collapse of the system.
Consequently, the median is potentially a more stable performance metric when analyzing a large number
of ground motion records, but should be restrained relative to a mean value.
The average ratio of secondary to primary component acceptance criteria for an RBS beamtocolumn
connection for all W18 sections and deeper is 1.49 for the CP SPL (1.47 for the LS SPL). The figures for
the RSAdesigned frame illustrate that this value is exceeded in the exterior beamtocolumn connections
at the BSE2 EHL. This highlights the rapid analytical progression towards a collapsed state when several
components are strained past the deformation associated with their peak strengthsee 3.1.4.2.
358
Roof
1Median
1Mean
184th
1Mean+1std
2Median
2Mean
284th
2Mean+1std
1NSP
2NSP
LSP (max)
LDP (max)
Floor ID
2
1 = Left Hinge
2 = Right Hinge
Base
Bay BC
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Bay CD
0.8
1.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Bay DE
1.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Figure 348. NDP Assessment Results, Beam Hinges, 4Story SMF ELF, BSE1 LS
Roof
1 = Left Hinge
2 = Right Hinge
1Median
1Mean
184th
1Mean+1std
2Median
2Mean
284th
2Mean+1std
1NSP
2NSP
LSP (max)
LDP (max)
Floor ID
Base
Bay BC
0.0
0.5
1.0
Bay CD
1.5
2.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
Bay DE
2.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
Figure 349. NDP Assessment Results, Beam Hinges, 4Story SMF RSA, BSE1 LS
359
2.0
Roof
1Median
1Mean
184th
1Mean+1std
2Median
2Mean
284th
2Mean+1std
1NSP
2NSP
LSP (max)
LDP (max)
Floor ID
2
1 = Left Hinge
2 = Right Hinge
Base
Bay BC
0.0
0.5
1.0
Bay CD
1.5
2.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
Bay DE
1.5
2.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Figure 350. NDP Assessment Results, Beam Hinges, 4Story SMF ELF, BSE2 CP
Roof
1 = Left Hinge
2 = Right Hinge
Floor ID
1Median
1Mean
184th
1Mean+1std
2Median
2Mean
284th
2Mean+1std
1NSP
2NSP
LSP (max)
LDP (max)
Base
Bay BC
0
Bay CD
3
Bay DE
3
Figure 351. NDP Assessment Results, Beam Hinges, 4Story SMF RSA, BSE2 CP
The previous figures for the RSAdesigned frame illustrate that the component strengths provided by drift
control measures in ASCE 7 at MCER (equal to the BSE1 here) are not significant enough to overcome
the demands to satisfy the assessment criteria at the BSE2 (taken here as MCER). In contrast, the ELFdesigned frame satisfies the assessment criteria at the BSE2. First, strong panel zones reduce the allowable
deformations in the acceptance criteria and component model for the exterior beamtocolumn connections.
Second, the increase in hinge demands in the lower floors is attributed primarily to design choices, as drift
is typically not a primary concern in these regions and thus beam strengths seldom get increased
360
significantly. Also contributing to this increase, to a lesser extent, is the distribution of the design forces
from the MRSA. This effect highlights the change in story demands as column base hinges develop, an
influence not addressed in elastic design analysis. However, a secondary design analysis to address the
effects of pinned column bases could be conductednot done in this study.
Figure 343 (see NSP section) illustrates which flexural actions in the frame columns are forcecontrolled
for both the NSP and NDP; all flexural actions are deformationcontrolled in these frames. Figure 352 and
Figure 353 show the performance of the column hinges for the CP BPL criteria at the BSE2 EHL (LS
BPL for the BSE1 is not shown). Column hinges at the base experience inelastic strain demands (yield
corresponds to a DCRN 0.15 in the figures). However, the deformation demands are considerably lower
than the primary CP acceptance criteria.
The DCRN results for the LSP and LDP are based on an interaction equation and not from MUD / mMCE, or
MUF / MCL, which would be a more physically consistent metric for comparison against the results from the
nonlinear assessment procedures. Nonetheless, the linear results are applicable here because the columns
are also deformationcontrolled for flexure in the linear assessment procedures. Though there is a
fundamental difference in how the DCRN is computed for the linear and nonlinear procedures, the linear
assessment results show similar distributions of demands and location of potential performance concerns.
Roof
Col. Line B
Col. Line C
Col. Line E
Col. Line D
Floor ID
Median
Mean
84th
Mean+1std
NSP
LSP (max)
LDP (max)
Base
Figure 352. NDP Assessment Results, Column Hinges, 4Story SMF ELF, BSE2 CP
361
Roof
Col. Line B
Col. Line E
Col. Line D
Floor ID
Col. Line C
Median
Mean
84th
Mean+1std
NSP
LSP (max)
LDP (max)
Base
Figure 353. NDP Assessment Results, Column Hinges, 4Story SMF RSA, BSE2 CP
Figure 354 and Figure 355 show the curvature ductility demand of the column hinges (i.e., section
strength) at the BSE2 EHL. Figure 356 and Figure 357 show the elastic member strength interaction
results at the BSE2 EHL. The results indicate that the columns in the ELF and RSAdesigned frames
satisfy the intended lowerbound acceptance criteria.
Roof
Col. Line B
Floor ID
Col. Line C
Col. Line E
Col. Line D
Median
Mean
84th
Mean+1std
NSP
LSP
LDP
Base
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Figure 354. NDP Assessment Results, Column Hinges, 4Story SMF ELF, BSE2 Yield
362
Roof
Col. Line C
Col. Line B
Floor ID
Col. Line E
Col. Line D
Median
Mean
84th
Mean+1std
NSP
LSP
LDP
Base
0
Figure 355. NDP Assessment Results, Column Hinges, 4Story SMF RSA, BSE2 Yield
Roof
Col. Line B
Col. Line E
Median
Mean
84th
Mean+1std
LSP
LDP
Floor ID
Base
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
363
Roof
Col. Line B
Col. Line E
Median
Mean
84th
Mean+1std
LSP
LDP
Floor ID
Base
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
(NDP = max of either axis, LSP / LDP = interaction equations from ASCE 41)
Figure 357. NDP Assessment Results, Column Members, 4Story SMF RSA, BSE2 CP
Figure 358 and Figure 359 show the performance of the panel zones for the CP BPL criteria at the BSE
2 EHL (LS BPL for the BSE1 is not shown). The deformation demands are significantly lower than the
CP acceptance criteria. Converting the results to total deformation / yield deformation indicates that the
demands for the BSE2 are consistently less than 4y. These results illustrate that the panel zones are
stronger than required by the assessment criteria, which may be the result of designing panel zones for the
probable connection strength in lieu of the nominal yield strength (i.e., My) as recommended in FEMA 350.
Also, upsizing column sizes to offset the need for doubler plates increases the shear strength of the panel
zones. Future research should investigate alternative design procedures for panel zones as well as the
variation in performance if columns sizes were not increased and doubler plates were added. This research
would include the variation in the performance of column base hinges or columntobase connections.
364
Roof
Col. Line B
Col. Line C
Col. Line D
Col. Line E
Median
Mean
84th
Mean+1std
NSP
LSP (max)
LDP (max)
Floor ID
Base
Figure 358. NDP Assessment Results, Panel Zones, 4Story SMF ELF, BSE2 CP
Roof
Col. Line B
Col. Line C
Col. Line D
Col. Line E
Median
Mean
84th
Mean+1std
NSP
LSP (max)
LDP (max)
Floor ID
Base
Figure 359. NDP Assessment Results, Panel Zones, 4Story SMF RSA, BSE2 CP
365
3.2.2.2.1.1
Figure 360 and Figure 361 provide the DCRN and loaddependent mfactor values for the ELF
and RSA designs, respectively, for the LSP at the BSE1 EHL. In these figures, DCRN values
greater than unity are highlighted in red and underlined. DCR values, as defined by ASCE 41, can
be obtained by multiplying DCRN by m and , see Eq. 36.
Figure 362 provides the maximum axial compression demands, PUF, in the exterior column lines
for various analysis methods and the column capacity, PCL.
All beamtocolumn and panel zone component actions satisfy the LS BPL acceptance criteria except for
the exterior beamtocolumn connections in the RSAdesigned frame on the third through sixth floors.
These connection failures are primarily due to reduced mfactors as a result of the FR connection modifiers
for panel zone strength and clear spantodepth limitations. The 20 percent reduction between the interior
connections in the RSAdesigned frame on the second and third floors in Figure 361(b) is due to the change
in the average storyheight, h, when computing the panel zone demandssee ASCE 41 5.4.2.4.24.2.
These figures illustrate that drift and stability control in ASCE 7 provides a significant amount of member
overstrength so that beamtocolumn connections in the ELFdesigned frame easily satisfy the LS BPL
acceptance criteria. Assessment results for the panel zones all remained small compared to unitysee
3.2.2.1.1.1.
Several columns do not satisfy the LS BPL acceptance criteria using the interaction equation because they
are designated as forcecontrolled for flexure since PUF exceeds 0.5PCL. Forcecontrolled designation can
be particularly problematic for base columns where plastic hinges are expected to form. As discussed
previously in 3.2.2, PUF is determined by taking J (ASCE 41 3.4.2.1.22) as the minimum DCR of the
component(s) delivering force to the column, but not less than 2.0; interior columns are not applicable
because PE is essentially zero. This approach produces the least conservative PUF as compared to AISC 341
SMF column design requirements and the fully yielded system as prescribed in ASCE 41 3.4.2.1.21, as
shown in Figure 362. It does not seem justified that forcecontrolled response be triggered by PUF / PCL in
lieu of PUF / Pye, more so when PCL is governed by any buckling mode other than inplane flexural buckling.
First, PCL can be controlled by flexural buckling about the weakaxis, which is a failure mode that should
be treated separately from the formation of a plastic hinge from inplane bending. Second, PCL varies based
on the length of a member whereas Pye is constant. ASCE 4113 took the first step in resolving this
inconsistency by permitting PUF / PCL to be computed in the plane of bending.
366
0.54
0.36
0.13
0.13
0.39
0.17
0.07
0.66
0.17
0.54
0.57
0.22
0.11
0.62
0.22
0.50
0.54
0.23
0.10
0.70
0.23
0.57
0.59
0.25
0.12
0.70
0.24
0.56
0.58
0.27
0.13
0.74
0.24
0.59
0.60
0.28
0.14
0.61
0.22
0.59
0.59
0.27
0.15
0.59
0.22
0.57
0.56
0.26
0.36
0.40
0.16
0.35
0.39
0.51
0.56
1.48
2.27
3.54
3.55
8.00
6.00
2.83
8.00
3.54
3.55
8.00
6.00
3.03
8.00
3.78
3.79
8.00
6.00
3.03
8.00
3.78
3.79
8.00
6.00
3.05
8.00
3.81
3.81
8.00
6.00
3.05
8.00
3.81
3.81
8.00
6.00
3.81
8.00
3.81
3.81
8.00
6.00
3.81
8.00
3.81
3.81
8.00
5.64
8.00
6.00
4.24
6.00
4.70
4.23
2.95
2.39
1.00
(a) DCRN
(b) mfactors
(c) Key
0.76
0.52
0.16
0.16
0.56
0.19
0.08
0.93
0.22
0.78
0.80
0.26
0.12
0.99
0.27
0.81
0.83
0.34
0.14
1.12
0.29
0.90
0.92
0.37
0.17
1.07
0.33
0.86
0.88
0.37
0.15
1.08
0.32
0.86
0.88
0.36
0.18
1.05
0.22
0.79
0.76
0.35
0.28
1.00
0.20
0.92
0.85
0.32
0.47
0.58
1.13
1.39
0.60
1.07
0.48
1.46
(a) DCRN
1.95
3.05
3.05
8.00
6.00
2.44
8.00
3.05
3.05
8.00
6.00
2.83
8.00
3.54
3.55
8.00
6.00
2.83
8.00
3.54
3.55
8.00
6.00
2.86
8.00
3.57
3.58
8.00
6.00
2.86
8.00
3.57
3.58
8.00
6.00
2.87
8.00
3.59
3.59
8.00
5.76
2.87
8.00
2.87
2.88
8.00
4.59
8.00
5.86
2.43
1.00
1.00
2.47
1.00
3.06
1.00
(b) mfactors
Figure 361. LSP Assessment Results, 8Story SMF RSA, BSE1 LS
367
(c) Key
Roof
Roof
PUF (J = Max[min DCR,2])
8
Pmax (NDP)
7
6
P (NSP)
Pu,Omega (ASCE 7, AISC 341)
Pu,Capacity Design
Floor
Floor
PUF (J = 1)
Pmax (NDP)
P (NSP)
Pu,Omega (ASCE 7, AISC 341)
Pu,Capacity Design
PCL (ASCE 41)
Base
PUF (J = 1)
Base
0
300
600
900
1200
1500
1800
2100
300
600
900
1200
1500
1800
2100
(a) ELF
(b) RSA
Figure 362. LSP Assessment Results, Compression in Exterior Columns, 8Story SMF, BSE1
3.2.2.2.1.2
368
0.63
0.42
0.14
0.14
0.45
0.18
0.08
0.78
0.19
0.63
0.66
0.24
0.11
0.73
0.24
0.59
0.63
0.25
0.11
0.82
0.25
0.66
0.70
0.27
0.12
0.83
0.26
0.66
0.68
0.30
0.14
0.88
0.27
0.69
0.71
0.30
0.15
0.72
0.24
0.69
0.69
0.30
0.16
0.70
0.24
0.67
0.66
0.29
0.38
0.48
0.30
0.44
0.50
0.74
1.08
2.06
2.86
4.48
4.48
11.00
8.00
3.58
11.00
4.48
4.48
11.00
8.00
3.82
11.00
4.78
4.78
11.00
8.00
3.82
11.00
4.78
4.78
11.00
8.00
3.85
11.00
4.81
4.81
11.00
8.00
3.85
11.00
4.81
4.82
11.00
8.00
4.81
11.00
4.81
4.82
11.00
8.00
4.81
11.00
4.81
4.82
11.00
7.47
11.00
8.00
4.72
7.33
5.07
4.20
2.00
1.00
1.00
(a) DCRN
(b) mfactors
(c) Key
0.89
0.60
0.18
0.17
0.64
0.21
0.09
1.09
0.25
0.89
0.93
0.29
0.13
1.17
0.29
0.94
0.97
0.37
0.16
1.32
0.31
1.06
1.08
0.40
0.19
1.26
0.36
1.01
1.04
0.40
0.16
1.27
0.35
1.01
1.03
0.39
0.19
1.23
0.24
0.93
0.89
0.39
0.29
1.17
0.22
1.08
0.99
0.35
0.49
0.66
1.41
1.72
0.77
1.34
0.58
1.89
(a) DCRN
2.47
3.86
3.86
11.00
8.00
3.08
11.00
3.86
3.86
11.00
8.00
3.58
11.00
4.48
4.48
11.00
8.00
3.58
11.00
4.48
4.48
11.00
8.00
3.61
11.00
4.51
4.52
11.00
8.00
3.61
11.00
4.51
4.52
11.00
8.00
3.63
11.00
4.54
4.54
11.00
7.66
3.63
11.00
3.63
3.63
11.00
6.10
11.00
7.82
2.64
1.00
1.00
2.02
1.00
2.80
1.00
(b) mfactors
Figure 364. LSP Assessment Results, 8Story SMF RSA, BSE2 CP
369
(c) Key
Roof
Roof
Pmax (NDP)
7
6
P (NSP)
Pu,Omega (ASCE 7, AISC 341)
Pu,Capacity Design
Floor
Floor
PUF (J = 1)
PUF (J = 1)
Pmax (NDP)
P (NSP)
Pu,Omega (ASCE 7, AISC 341)
Pu,Capacity Design
PCL (ASCE 41)
2
Base
Base
0
300
600
900
1200
1500
1800
2100
300
600
900
1200
1500
1800
2100
(a) ELF
(b) RSA
Figure 365. LSP Assessment Results, Compression in Exterior Columns, 8Story SMF, BSE2
3.2.2.2.2
3.2.2.2.2.1
370
0.47
0.32
0.11
0.12
0.33
0.14
0.06
0.54
0.13
0.45
0.45
0.17
0.10
0.46
0.16
0.38
0.40
0.17
0.08
0.50
0.17
0.41
0.43
0.18
0.10
0.52
0.17
0.41
0.43
0.20
0.11
0.57
0.19
0.45
0.46
0.21
0.13
0.49
0.18
0.48
0.47
0.22
0.14
0.50
0.18
0.48
0.47
0.22
0.34
0.37
0.13
0.30
0.33
0.42
0.45
1.28
2.27
3.54
3.55
8.00
6.00
2.83
8.00
3.54
3.55
8.00
6.00
3.03
8.00
3.78
3.79
8.00
6.00
3.03
8.00
3.78
3.79
8.00
6.00
3.05
8.00
3.81
3.81
8.00
6.00
3.05
8.00
3.81
3.81
8.00
6.00
3.81
8.00
3.81
3.81
8.00
6.00
3.81
8.00
3.81
3.81
8.00
5.66
8.00
6.00
4.49
6.00
5.17
4.85
3.78
3.33
1.00
(a) DCRN
(b) mfactors
(c) Key
0.71
0.49
0.15
0.15
0.50
0.18
0.07
0.78
0.18
0.66
0.67
0.21
0.10
0.75
0.19
0.61
0.62
0.25
0.12
0.82
0.21
0.66
0.67
0.26
0.15
0.78
0.24
0.63
0.64
0.27
0.13
0.81
0.24
0.65
0.66
0.27
0.16
0.83
0.17
0.63
0.60
0.28
0.27
0.84
0.17
0.77
0.71
0.27
0.45
0.52
0.68
1.18
0.48
0.66
0.40
0.84
(a) DCRN
1.95
3.05
3.05
8.00
6.00
2.44
8.00
3.05
3.05
8.00
6.00
2.83
8.00
3.54
3.55
8.00
6.00
2.83
8.00
3.54
3.55
8.00
6.00
2.86
8.00
3.57
3.58
8.00
6.00
2.86
8.00
3.57
3.58
8.00
6.00
2.87
8.00
3.59
3.59
8.00
5.77
2.87
8.00
2.87
2.88
8.00
4.56
8.00
5.86
2.58
1.83
1.00
3.22
1.81
3.84
1.78
(b) mfactors
Figure 367. LDP Assessment Results, 8Story SMF RSA, BSE1 LS
371
(c) Key
Roof
Roof
PUF (J = Max[min DCR,2])
Pmax (NDP)
7
6
P (NSP)
Pu,Omega (ASCE 7, AISC 341)
Pu,Capacity Design
Floor
Floor
PUF (J = 1)
Pmax (NDP)
P (NSP)
Pu,Omega (ASCE 7, AISC 341)
Pu,Capacity Design
PCL (ASCE 41)
Base
PUF (J = 1)
Base
0
300
600
900
1200
1500
1800
2100
300
600
900
1200
1500
1800
2100
(a) ELF
(b) RSA
Figure 368. LDP Assessment Results, Compression in Exterior Columns, 8Story SMF, BSE1
3.2.2.2.2.2
372
0.58
0.38
0.12
0.13
0.40
0.16
0.07
0.64
0.15
0.52
0.54
0.19
0.11
0.54
0.17
0.44
0.47
0.18
0.09
0.60
0.18
0.48
0.51
0.20
0.11
0.62
0.19
0.49
0.50
0.22
0.12
0.67
0.20
0.53
0.54
0.23
0.13
0.58
0.20
0.56
0.55
0.24
0.14
0.59
0.20
0.57
0.55
0.24
0.35
0.44
0.25
0.36
0.40
0.52
0.58
1.77
2.86
4.48
4.48
11.00
8.00
3.58
11.00
4.48
4.48
11.00
8.00
3.82
11.00
4.78
4.78
11.00
8.00
3.82
11.00
4.78
4.78
11.00
8.00
3.85
11.00
4.81
4.81
11.00
8.00
3.85
11.00
4.81
4.82
11.00
8.00
4.81
11.00
4.81
4.82
11.00
8.00
4.81
11.00
4.81
4.82
11.00
7.50
11.00
8.00
5.14
7.83
6.02
5.43
3.67
2.88
1.00
(a) DCRN
(b) mfactors
(c) Key
0.83
0.56
0.16
0.16
0.58
0.19
0.08
0.91
0.20
0.75
0.77
0.23
0.11
0.88
0.21
0.71
0.73
0.27
0.13
0.96
0.22
0.77
0.78
0.29
0.16
0.92
0.26
0.74
0.76
0.29
0.14
0.95
0.26
0.76
0.77
0.29
0.17
0.98
0.19
0.74
0.70
0.30
0.28
0.98
0.19
0.90
0.83
0.29
0.47
0.61
1.29
1.53
0.59
1.14
0.48
1.72
(a) DCRN
2.47
3.86
3.86
11.00
8.00
3.08
11.00
3.86
3.86
11.00
8.00
3.58
11.00
4.48
4.48
11.00
8.00
3.58
11.00
4.48
4.48
11.00
8.00
3.61
11.00
4.51
4.52
11.00
8.00
3.61
11.00
4.51
4.52
11.00
8.00
3.63
11.00
4.54
4.54
11.00
7.67
3.63
11.00
3.63
3.63
11.00
6.05
11.00
7.82
2.79
1.00
1.00
3.12
1.00
3.96
1.00
(b) mfactors
Figure 370. LDP Assessment Results, 8Story SMF RSA, BSE2 CP
373
(c) Key
Roof
Roof
PUF (J = Max[min DCR,2])
PUF (J = 1)
PUF (J = 1)
Pmax (NDP)
P (NSP)
Pu,Omega (ASCE 7, AISC 341)
Pu,Capacity Design
Floor
Floor
P (NSP)
Pu,Omega (ASCE 7, AISC 341)
Pu,Capacity Design
PCL (ASCE 41)
Base
Pmax (NDP)
Base
0
300
600
900
1200
1500
1800
2100
300
600
900
1200
1500
1800
2100
(a) ELF
(b) RSA
Figure 371. LDP Assessment Results, Compression in Exterior Columns, 8Story SMF, BSE2
3.2.2.2.3
controls d and P would be zero (or even positive). The secondorder curves shown in the figure illustrate
the potential sensitivity of NSP results when base column hinges develop in moment framesincluding
the effect of modeling parameters used for the hinges. Furthermore, the NSP is not permitted for assessment
of the EW direction of MC8 for the RSAdesigned frame since R > Rmax for the BSE2 EHLresults are
provided here only for performance comparison between systems. However, the ratio of R / Rmax (= 1.01)
would likely be acceptable in practice.
Table 316. NSP General Information, 8Story SMF (kip, inch)
Design
ELF
RSA
T1
2.79
3.60
K1
76.9
41.5
y
13.7
14.9
Vy
1050
623
Ke
76.9
41.7
Te
2.79
3.59
peak
19.1
26.3
h
1.15
1.19
Vpeak
1116.9
664.8
W
10618
10527
Cm
1.00
1.00
C0
1.32
1.33
Table 317. NSP Analysis Parameters, 8Story SMF BSE2 CP (kip, inch)
Design
ELF
RSA
Sa
0.33
0.26
R
3.37
4.35
C1
1.00
1.00
t
33.5
43.3
C2
1.00
1.00
Vt
1092.3
593.2
d
19.1
26.3
P
0.16
0.09
0.25
0.31
0.02
0.10
0.07
0.14
Rmax
6.88
4.31
R Rmax
OK
R > Rmax
Rmax
6.88
4.31
R Rmax
OK
OK
Table 318. NSP Analysis Parameters 8Story SMF BSE1 LS (kip, inch)
Sa
0.22
0.17
R
2.25
2.90
C1
1.00
1.00
t
22.4
28.8
C2
1.00
1.00
Vt
1113.0
660.7
d
19.1
26.3
P
0.16
0.09
0.25
0.31
0.02
0.10
0.07
0.14
0.4
0.7
1.1
1.4
1.8
2.2
2.5
2.9
3.2
3.6
0.15
1400
0.13
1200
0.11
(19.1,1116.9)
1000
0.09
(13.7,1050.0)
A
800
600
400
0.08
B
ELF (FirstOrder)
ELF (SecondOrder)
ELF Idealized Backbone
ELF (FirstOrder) No Column Hinges
ELF (SecondOrder) No Column Hinges
200
0.06
(44.9,630.0)
0.04
0.02
C
0.00
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
375
45
50
1600
Design
ELF
RSA
1.1
1.4
1.8
2.2
2.5
2.9
3.2
3.6
0.15
RSA (FirstOrder)
RSA (SecondOrder)
RSA Idealized Backbone
1400
0.7
0.13
1200
0.11
1000
0.09
800
0.08
(26.3,664.8)
600
0.06
(14.9,623.0)
A
B
C
400
1600
0.0
0.04
(48.6,373.8)
Pt. A: Ext. column base hinge reaches CP
Pt. B: Ext. hinges (2) reach CP on both
1st and 2nd Floor
Pt. C: Ext. hinges (2) reach CP on 3rd Floor
200
0.02
0.00
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3.0%
2.5%
2.0%
1.5%
1st Story
2nd Story
3rd Story
4th Story
5th Story
6th Story
7th Story
8th Story
Roof
1.0%
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
376
2.0%
3.0%
2.5%
2.0%
1.5%
1st Story
2nd Story
3rd Story
4th Story
5th Story
6th Story
7th Story
8th Story
Roof
1.0%
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
Of particular interest in the pushover curves is the large disparity between the peak base shears developed
in the ELF and RSAdesigned buildings (RSA / ELF = 665 / 1117 = 0.6), a 40 percent change. At first
glance, this is greater than the 15 percent difference in design base shears allowed by ASCE 7. Upon further
inspection, it can be reasoned that the primary contribution to this disparity is due to the increase in strength
provided to the ELFdesigned frame to satisfy drift provisions in ASCE 7 (i.e., 15 percent plus additional
strength). To a lesser extent, the distribution of the lateral forces in the NSP do not coincide with the
allocation of the story shear yield strengths (as shown in Figure 376 and Figure 377), which results in
capping the base shear if the initial story mechanism develops above the first story (as is the case for the
RSAdesigned frame). The oval in these figures illustrates the first floor to develop its defined yield
strength, Vy, and the colorcode for the expected plastic hinges match that provided in Figure 379.
Figure 378 illustrates which frame columns are forcecontrolled for flexure for both the NSP and NDP;
red circles indicate anticipated plastic hinge locations that are forcecontrolled for flexure at the target
displacement. As shown in the figure, the forcecontrolled columns do not align between the two frames
the axial load ratios, P / PCL, for the exterior base columns are 0.58 and 0.48 for the ELF and RSAdesigned
frames, respectively (0.26 and 0.64 at the fifth story). This illustrates the sensitivity of results due to
variations between the nonadaptive loading profile in the NSP and that used for design. Figure 379
through Figure 382 illustrate the DCRN values if greater than unity for the ELF and RSAdesigned frames
at the target displacement for the LS BPL at the BSE1 EHL and CP BPL at the BSE2 EHL. These figures
illustrate the demands when the system is loaded to the right. All component actions for the beamtocolumn
connections and panel zones satisfy the LS and CP BPL acceptance criteria at the target displacements.
However, assuming deformationcontrolled flexural actions, the exterior base column hinge for both frames
fail the CP BPL primary acceptance criteria. This is a corollary to a column plastic hinge model (section
377
strength) being a function of PCL (based on member stability) and not Pye (based on section strength), as
well as the adopted PM interaction equation (see previous discussion on nonlinear model). This also
indicates that this may be the first hinge to experience significant strength loss (P / PCL = 0.28 for gravity
loads alonesee summary section for calculations). As it is an exterior base column, this could be
detrimental to the performance of the system.
Roof
Building: MC8
SFRS: SMF (EW)
Design: ELF
Floor ID
First Expected
Story Strength
or
Base
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Roof
Building: MC8
SFRS: SMF (EW)
Design: RSA
Floor ID
or
Base
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
378
Several exterior columns, including those at the base of the ELFdesigned frame, are forcecontrolled for
flexure at the target displacements. Forcecontrolled base columns are problematic for a region that is
expected to experience inelastic strain demands. Therefore, the acceptance criterion for these flexural
actions is based on the forcecontrolled lowerbound elastic PM interaction (ASCE 41 Equation 512). As
discussed previously, variations in PM interaction curves add complexity to nonlinear flexural hinge
model. Essentially, a nonlinear hinge based on the expected yield surface of the section must be
accompanied by another model that can measure the lowerbound strength of the member (one for each
axis of buckling). For simplicity, failing of the acceptance criteria (without computing interaction values)
is selfevident because of the development of plastic hinges in the frame columns. Because plastic hinges
have developed in the base columns in the ELFdesign frame, flexural actions therefore do not satisfy the
intended elastic acceptance criteria. Conversely, the forcecontrolled columns in the RSA frame satisfy the
intended elastic acceptance criteriamember stability would still need to be verified.
B
Sym. About
E
Roof
8th Floor
(ELEV = 102 ft.)
7th Floor
(ELEV = 88 ft.)
6th Floor
(ELEV = 74 ft.)
RS A NDP LS & CP
RS A NS P LS & CP
5th Floor
(ELEV = 60 ft.)
4th Floor
(ELEV = 46 ft.)
3rd Flo or
(ELEV = 32 ft.)
2nd Flo or
(ELEV = 18 ft.)
Figure 378. Schematic of Flexural Actions in Columns, 8Story SMF (NSP and NDP)
379
E
Roof
(ELEV = 116 ft.)
8th Flo or
(ELEV = 102 ft.)
7th Flo or
(ELEV = 88 ft.)
6th Flo or
(ELEV = 74 ft.)
DCRN 1.0
5th Flo or
(ELEV = 60 ft.)
4th Flo or
(ELEV = 46 ft.)
3rd Floor
(ELEV = 32 ft.)
2nd Flo or
(ELEV = 18 ft.)
4.01
Figure 379. NSP Assessment Results, 8Story SMF ELF, BSE1 LS (+push to right)
E
Roof
8th Flo or
7th Flo or
(ELEV = 88 ft.)
6th Flo or
(ELEV = 74 ft.)
DCRN 1.0
5th Flo or
(ELEV = 60 ft.)
4th Flo or
(ELEV = 46 ft.)
3rd Floor
(ELEV = 32 ft.)
2nd Flo or
(ELEV = 18 ft.)
1.26
Figure 380. NSP Assessment Results, 8Story SMF RSA, BSE1 LS (+push to right)
380
E
Roof
(ELEV = 116 ft.)
8th Flo or
(ELEV = 102 ft.)
7th Flo or
(ELEV = 88 ft.)
6th Flo or
(ELEV = 74 ft.)
DCRN 1.0
5th Flo or
(ELEV = 60 ft.)
4th Flo or
(ELEV = 46 ft.)
3rd Floor
(ELEV = 32 ft.)
2nd Flo or
(ELEV = 18 ft.)
(2.11 if DC)
9.43
Figure 381. NSP Assessment Results, 8Story SMF ELF, BSE2 CP (+push to right)
E
Roof
8th Flo or
7th Flo or
(ELEV = 88 ft.)
6th Flo or
(ELEV = 74 ft.)
DCRN 1.0
5th Flo or
(ELEV = 60 ft.)
4th Flo or
(ELEV = 46 ft.)
3rd Floor
(ELEV = 32 ft.)
2nd Flo or
(ELEV = 18 ft.)
2.38
Figure 382. NSP Assessment Results, 8Story SMF RSA, BSE2 CP (+push to right)
381
3.2.2.2.4
The earthquake record set used to assess the EW direction of MC8 is shown in Appendix A. For the ELF
design, the analysis successfully completed for all 14 records at the BSE1 EHL; however, three analyses
did not complete at the BSE2 EHL because of excessive lateral drift or solution nonconvergence. For the
RSA design, the analysis successfully completed for 12 records at the BSE1 EHL; however, nine analyses
did not complete at the BSE2 EHL because of excessive lateral drift or solution nonconvergence.
Maximum axial compression force in the exterior column lines from the record set are shown previously in
the linear assessment sections.
Figure 383 through Figure 386 show the performance of the beam hinges (i.e., beamtocolumn
connections) at the BSE1 (LS BPL) and BSE2 (CP BPL) for the ELF and RSAdesigned frames,
respectively. The results from the LSP, LDP, and NSP (loaded to the right) are included in the figures.
Comparison discussions between the various procedures are addressed subsequently. As is evident from
the figures, the ELFdesigned frame performs better than the RSAdesigned frame. Results for the RSAdesigned frame indicate that the beamtocolumn connections have difficulty satisfying the CP BPL
acceptance criteria at the BSE2 EHL (primarily based on mean response). In contrast to the mean response,
the median response indicates better performance at all stories because it is less influenced by large
deformations resulting from component strength loss potentially resulting in collapse of the system.
Consequently, the median is potentially a more stable performance metric when analyzing a large number
of ground motion records, but should be restrained relative to a mean value. Further, there is a strong
probability that system response is triggered by the performance of the exterior base column hingessee
previous discussion in NSP section.
Roof
1Median
1Mean
184th
1Mean+1std
2Median
2Mean
284th
2Mean+1std
1NSP
2NSP
LSP (max)
LDP (max)
8
7
Floor ID
6
5
4
1 = Left Hinge
2 = Right Hinge
3
2
Base
Bay BC
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Bay CD
0.8
1.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Bay DE
0.8
1.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Figure 383. NDP Assessment Results, Beam Hinges, 8Story SMF ELF, BSE1 LS
382
0.8
1.0
Roof
1 = Left Hinge
2 = Right Hinge
1Median
1Mean
184th
1Mean+1std
2Median
2Mean
284th
2Mean+1std
1NSP
2NSP
LSP (max)
LDP (max)
Floor ID
6
5
4
3
2
Base
Bay BC
0
Bay CD
Bay DE
6
Figure 384. NDP Assessment Results, Beam Hinges, 8Story SMF RSA, BSE1 LS
The average ratio of secondary to primary component acceptance criteria for an RBS beamtocolumn
connection for all W18 sections and deeper is 1.49 for the CP SPL (1.47 for the LS SPL). The figures for
the both frames illustrate that this value is exceeded in the beamtocolumn connections at the BSE2 EHL.
This highlights the rapid progression towards a collapse state when several components are strained past
the deformation associated with their peak strengthsee 3.1.4.2.
Roof
1Median
1Mean
184th
1Mean+1std
2Median
2Mean
284th
2Mean+1std
1NSP
2NSP
LSP (max)
LDP (max)
1 = Left Hinge
2 = Right Hinge
8
7
Floor ID
6
5
4
3
2
Base
Bay CD
Bay BC
0
Bay DE
6
Figure 385. NDP Assessment Results, Beam Hinges, 8Story SMF ELF, BSE2 CP
383
Roof
1Median
1Mean
184th
1Mean+1std
2Median
2Mean
284th
2Mean+1std
1NSP
2NSP
LSP (max)
LDP (max)
1 = Left Hinge
2 = Right Hinge
8
7
Floor ID
6
5
4
3
2
Base
Bay BC
0
Bay CD
10
12
14
10
Bay DE
12
14
10
12
14
Figure 386. NDP Assessment Results, Beam Hinges, 8Story SMF RSA, BSE2 CP
The previous figures illustrate for both frames that the component strengths provided by drift and stability
control measures in ASCE 7 at MCER (equal to the BSE1 here) are not significant enough to overcome
the demands to satisfy the assessment criteria at the BSE2 (taken here as MCER). First, strong panel zones
reduce the allowable deformations in the acceptance criteria and component model for the exterior beam
tocolumn connections. Second, base hinge modeling could have a drastic effect on the performance of the
beamtocolumn connections. This further highlights the change in story demands as column base hinges
develop, an influence not addressed in elastic design analysis. However, a secondary design analysis to
address the effects of pinned column bases could be conductednot done in this study.
Figure 378 (see NSP section) illustrates which flexural actions in the frame columns are forcecontrolled
for both the NSP and NDP. Figure 387 and Figure 388 show the performance of the column hinges for
the CP BPL criteria for the BSE2 assuming deformationcontrolled flexural actions (LS BPL for the BSE
1 is not shown). Column hinges at the base experience inelastic strain demands (yield corresponds to a
DCRN 0.15 in the figures). The deformation demands in these hinges are considerably higher than the CP
primary acceptance criteria, indicating a significant performance concern of the frame columns and the
SFRS. Similarly, the exterior base columns in the ELFdesigned frame are forcecontrolled for flexure and
therefore do not satisfy the lowerbound elastic acceptance criteria at the BSE2 EHL. Moreover, the
columns in the RSAdesigned frame on the fifth floor do not satisfy the acceptance criteria because they
are also forcecontrolled.
The DCRN results for the LSP and LDP are based on an interaction equation and not from MUD / mMCE, or
MUF / MCL, which would be a more physically consistent metric for comparison against the results from the
nonlinear assessment procedures. Nonetheless, the linear results are generally not applicable here because
most columns are forcecontrolled for flexure in the linear assessment procedures. Though there is a
fundamental difference in how the DCRN is computed for the linear and nonlinear procedures, the linear
assessment results show similar distributions of demands and location of potential performance concerns.
384
Roof
Col. Line B
Col. Line D
Col. Line C
Col. Line E
Floor ID
Median
Mean
84th
Mean+1std
NSP
LSP (max)
LDP (max)
5
4
3
2
Base
Figure 387. NDP Assessment Results, Column Hinges, 8Story SMF ELF, BSE2 CP
Roof
Col. Line B
Col. Line C
Col. Line E
Col. Line D
Floor ID
6
Median
Mean
84th
Mean+1std
NSP
LSP (max)
LDP (max)
5
4
3
2
Base
10
10
10
10
Figure 388. NDP Assessment Results, Column Hinges, 8Story SMF RSA, BSE2 CP
Figure 389 and Figure 390 show the curvature ductility demand of the column hinges (i.e., section
strength) at the BSE2 EHL. Figure 391 and Figure 392 show the elastic member strength interaction
results at the BSE2 EHL. The results indicate that the columns above the base in the ELFdesigned frame
satisfy the intended lowerbound acceptance criteria whereas the columns in the RSAdesigned frame
consistently do not satisfy these acceptance criteriaa result of the large number of analyses that did not
complete.
385
Roof
Col. Line C
Col. Line B
Median
Mean
84th
Mean+1std
NSP
LSP
LDP
Col. Line E
Col. Line D
Floor ID
6
5
4
3
2
Base
0
8 10 12 14
8 10 12 14
8 10 12 14
8 10 12 14
Roof
Col. Line B
Col. Line D
Col. Line C
Median
Mean
84th
Mean+1std
NSP
LSP
LDP
Col. Line E
Floor ID
6
5
4
3
2
Base
0
10 15 20 25 30
10 15 20 25 30
10 15 20 25 30
10 15 20 25 30
Figure 390. NDP Assessment Results, Column Hinges, 8Story SMF RSA, BSE2 Yield
386
Roof
Col. Line B
Col. Line C
Col. Line D
Col. Line E
See LSP and LDP
for forcecontrolled
columns.
8
7
Floor ID
6
5
Median
Mean
84th
Mean+1std
LSP
LDP
4
3
2
Base
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Roof
Col. Line B
Col. Line C
Col. Line D
Col. Line E
See LSP and LDP
for forcecontrolled
columns.
8
7
Floor ID
6
5
Median
Mean
84th
Mean+1std
LSP
LDP
4
3
2
Base
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Figure 393 and Figure 394 show the performance of the panel zones for the CP BPL criteria at the BSE
2 EHL (LS BPL for the BSE1 is not shown). The deformation demands are significantly lower than the
CP acceptance criteria. Converting the results to shear ductility (total deformation / yield deformation, y)
indicates that the demands for the BSE2 are consistently less than 4y. These results illustrate that the
panel zones are stronger than required by the assessment criteriasee discussion in the 4story NDP
section. There is one outlier at the interior panel zones on the third floor in the RSAdesigned frame. First,
387
the first hinges to form are on the third floor. Second, the mean results are biased toward the collapse state
of the frame for a given recorda result of the large number of analyses that did not complete.
Roof
Col. Line C
Col. Line B
Col. Line D
Col. Line E
8
7
Median
Mean
84th
Mean+1std
NSP
LSP
LDP
Floor ID
6
5
4
3
2
Base
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Figure 393. NDP Assessment Results, Panel Zones, 8Story SMF ELF, BSE2 CP
Roof
Col. Line B
Col. Line C
Col. Line D
Col. Line E
Median
Mean
84th
Mean+1std
NSP
LSP
LDP
Floor ID
6
5
4
3
2
Base
Figure 394. NDP Assessment Results, Panel Zones, 8Story SMF RSA, BSE2 CP
388
3.2.2.3.1.1
Figure 395 and Figure 396 provide the DCRN and loaddependent mfactor values for the ELF
and RSA designs, respectively, for the LSP at the BSE1 EHL. In these figures, DCRN values
greater than unity are highlighted in red and underlined. DCR values, as defined by ASCE 41, can
be obtained by multiplying DCRN by m and , see Eq. 36.
Figure 397 provides the maximum axial compression demands, PUF, in the exterior column lines
for various analysis methods and the column capacity, PCL.
All beamtocolumn and panel zone component actions satisfy the LS BPL acceptance criteria except for
the exterior beamtocolumn connections in the RSAdesigned frame on the 14th floor. These connection
failures are primarily due to reduced mfactors as a result of the FR connection modifiers for panel zone
strength and clear spantodepth limitations. These figures illustrate that drift and stability control in ASCE
7 provides a significant amount of member overstrength so that beamtocolumn connections in the ELFdesigned frame easily satisfy the LS BPL acceptance criteria. Assessment results for the panel zones all
remained small compared to unitysee 3.2.2.1.1.1.
Several exterior frame columns in the RSAdesigned frame do not satisfy the LS BPL acceptance criteria
using the interaction equation because they are designated as forcecontrolled for flexure since PUF exceeds
0.5PCLsee 3.2.2.2.1 for more discussion. As discussed previously in 3.2.2, PUF is determined by
taking J (ASCE 41 3.4.2.1.22) as the minimum DCR of the component(s) delivering force to the column,
but not less than 2.0; interior columns are not applicable because PE is essentially zero. This approach
produces the least conservative PUF as compared to AISC 341 SMF column design requirements and the
fully yielded system as prescribed in ASCE 41 3.4.2.1.21, as shown in Figure 397.
389
0.42
0.34
0.07
0.08
0.60
0.09
0.39
0.46
0.14
0.10
0.47
0.14
0.38
0.47
0.18
0.08
0.55
0.16
0.44
0.53
0.20
0.09
0.55
0.18
0.44
0.54
0.21
0.10
0.61
0.19
0.49
0.58
0.22
0.12
0.68
0.20
0.53
0.61
0.24
0.13
0.70
0.20
0.54
0.61
0.24
0.15
0.82
0.18
0.49
0.54
0.24
0.15
0.82
0.18
0.49
0.53
0.24
0.26
0.69
0.16
0.50
0.53
0.24
0.28
0.69
0.15
0.50
0.52
0.24
0.30
0.72
0.12
0.52
0.53
0.20
0.27
0.70
0.11
0.51
0.50
0.19
0.29
0.67
0.06
0.47
0.44
0.17
0.30
0.56
0.05
0.39
0.35
0.13
0.39
0.14
0.30
0.43
0.52
0.90
0.51
0.69
0.52
0.76
0.60
0.81
0.55
0.76
0.38
0.55
2.31
0.43
0.12
0.06
2.88
2.88
8.00
6.00
2.31
8.00
3.60
3.61
8.00
6.00
3.07
8.00
3.83
3.84
8.00
6.00
3.07
8.00
3.83
3.84
8.00
6.00
3.17
8.00
3.97
3.97
8.00
6.00
3.17
8.00
3.97
3.97
8.00
6.00
3.17
8.00
3.97
3.97
8.00
6.00
3.17
8.00
3.97
3.97
8.00
6.00
2.61
8.00
4.07
4.07
8.00
6.00
2.61
8.00
4.07
4.07
8.00
5.84
3.26
8.00
4.07
4.07
8.00
5.56
3.26
8.00
4.07
4.07
8.00
5.29
3.26
8.00
4.07
4.07
8.00
5.70
3.26
8.00
4.07
4.07
8.00
5.49
3.26
8.00
4.07
4.07
8.00
5.31
3.26
8.00
4.07
4.07
8.00
4.67
8.00
4.01
4.01
3.77
2.79
2.41
1.00
2.67
1.52
2.45
1.00
1.72
1.00
2.04
1.00
3.89
2.92
Sym.
(a) DCRN
(b) mfactors
Figure 395. LSP Assessment Results, 16Story SMF ELF, BSE1 LS
390
(c) Key
0.44
0.37
0.07
0.08
0.48
0.13
0.07
0.67
0.11
0.45
0.53
0.17
0.11
0.97
0.12
0.62
0.69
0.22
0.15
1.13
0.14
0.71
0.78
0.25
0.32
0.74
0.21
0.59
0.68
0.27
0.12
0.76
0.22
0.62
0.72
0.27
0.13
0.83
0.23
0.67
0.75
0.29
0.15
0.86
0.23
0.68
0.76
0.29
0.28
0.78
0.23
0.62
0.69
0.28
0.25
0.77
0.23
0.61
0.68
0.27
0.28
0.99
0.20
0.61
0.66
0.26
0.31
0.95
0.19
0.59
0.62
0.25
0.35
0.82
0.17
0.51
0.55
0.20
0.27
0.76
0.15
0.47
0.50
0.18
0.29
0.59
0.10
0.44
0.44
0.16
0.31
0.51
0.08
0.37
0.36
0.13
0.41
0.16
0.29
0.43
0.58
0.96
0.55
0.89
0.86
0.96
0.91
1.05
0.88
0.95
0.73
1.15
2.31
2.88
2.88
8.00
6.00
2.31
8.00
3.60
3.61
8.00
6.00
2.31
8.00
3.60
3.61
8.00
6.00
2.31
8.00
3.60
3.61
8.00
4.55
3.07
8.00
3.83
3.84
8.00
6.00
3.07
8.00
3.83
3.84
8.00
6.00
3.07
8.00
3.83
3.84
8.00
6.00
3.07
8.00
3.83
3.84
8.00
5.80
3.17
8.00
3.97
3.97
8.00
5.96
3.17
8.00
3.97
3.97
8.00
5.60
2.54
8.00
3.97
3.97
8.00
5.26
2.54
8.00
3.97
3.97
8.00
4.93
2.61
8.00
4.07
4.07
8.00
5.64
2.61
8.00
4.07
4.07
8.00
5.38
3.26
8.00
4.07
4.07
8.00
5.15
3.26
8.00
4.07
4.07
8.00
4.46
8.00
4.01
4.01
3.84
2.97
1.85
1.00
2.17
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Sym.
(a) DCRN
(b) mfactors
Figure 396. LSP Assessment Results, 16Story SMF RSA, BSE1 LS
391
(c) Key
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Floor
Floor
Roof
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Base
6000
Roof
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Base
7000
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
(a) ELF
(b) RSA
Figure 397. LSP Assessment Results, Compression in Exterior Columns, 16Story SMF, BSE1
3.2.2.3.1.2
392
0.49
0.39
0.08
0.09
0.50
0.13
0.07
0.70
0.10
0.44
0.53
0.16
0.10
0.56
0.15
0.45
0.55
0.20
0.09
0.65
0.17
0.51
0.62
0.21
0.10
0.65
0.19
0.52
0.63
0.23
0.11
0.72
0.21
0.57
0.68
0.24
0.13
0.80
0.22
0.62
0.72
0.26
0.14
0.83
0.22
0.64
0.72
0.26
0.17
0.97
0.20
0.58
0.64
0.27
0.25
0.97
0.19
0.57
0.63
0.26
0.28
0.81
0.17
0.59
0.62
0.26
0.30
0.82
0.17
0.59
0.61
0.26
0.33
0.85
0.13
0.62
0.63
0.22
0.28
0.82
0.13
0.60
0.59
0.20
0.30
0.79
0.07
0.56
0.52
0.18
0.31
0.66
0.05
0.46
0.41
0.14
0.41
0.15
0.35
0.53
0.71
1.19
0.97
1.17
0.93
1.02
0.97
1.09
0.91
1.02
0.51
1.29
(a) DCRN
2.91
3.64
3.64
11.00
8.00
2.91
11.00
4.55
4.56
11.00
8.00
3.87
11.00
4.84
4.84
11.00
8.00
3.87
11.00
4.84
4.84
11.00
8.00
4.01
11.00
5.01
5.02
11.00
8.00
4.01
11.00
5.01
5.02
11.00
8.00
4.01
11.00
5.01
5.02
11.00
8.00
4.01
11.00
5.01
5.02
11.00
8.00
3.29
11.00
5.14
5.14
11.00
7.94
3.29
11.00
5.14
5.14
11.00
7.51
4.11
11.00
5.14
5.14
11.00
7.14
4.11
11.00
5.14
5.14
11.00
6.79
4.11
11.00
5.14
5.14
11.00
7.39
4.11
11.00
5.14
5.14
11.00
7.13
4.11
11.00
5.14
5.14
11.00
6.92
4.11
11.00
5.14
5.14
11.00
6.09
11.00
5.48
5.48
4.50
2.91
1.90
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.24
1.00
(b) mfactors
Figure 398. LSP Assessment Results, 16Story SMF ELF, BSE2 CP
393
(c) Key
0.51
0.42
0.08
0.09
0.55
0.14
0.07
0.79
0.12
0.51
0.62
0.19
0.12
1.15
0.13
0.72
0.80
0.25
0.16
1.33
0.15
0.83
0.91
0.27
0.34
0.88
0.23
0.69
0.80
0.30
0.13
0.90
0.24
0.73
0.85
0.30
0.14
0.99
0.25
0.78
0.88
0.32
0.16
1.02
0.25
0.80
0.89
0.32
0.30
0.92
0.25
0.72
0.82
0.30
0.27
0.91
0.25
0.72
0.80
0.29
0.30
1.17
0.22
0.72
0.78
0.29
0.33
1.12
0.20
0.69
0.73
0.27
0.38
0.97
0.18
0.60
0.64
0.22
0.29
0.90
0.16
0.56
0.59
0.20
0.31
0.69
0.11
0.52
0.51
0.17
0.33
0.60
0.09
0.44
0.42
0.14
0.44
0.33
0.34
0.52
0.98
1.28
1.00
1.20
1.15
1.28
1.22
1.42
1.18
1.27
0.98
1.59
(a) DCRN
2.91
3.64
3.64
11.00
8.00
2.91
11.00
4.55
4.56
11.00
8.00
2.91
11.00
4.55
4.56
11.00
8.00
2.91
11.00
4.55
4.56
11.00
5.91
3.87
11.00
4.84
4.84
11.00
8.00
3.87
11.00
4.84
4.84
11.00
8.00
3.87
11.00
4.84
4.84
11.00
8.00
3.87
11.00
4.84
4.84
11.00
7.52
4.01
11.00
5.01
5.02
11.00
7.74
4.01
11.00
5.01
5.02
11.00
7.21
3.21
11.00
5.01
5.02
11.00
6.74
3.21
11.00
5.01
5.02
11.00
6.28
3.29
11.00
5.14
5.14
11.00
7.28
3.29
11.00
5.14
5.14
11.00
6.93
4.11
11.00
5.14
5.14
11.00
6.64
4.11
11.00
5.14
5.14
11.00
5.70
11.00
5.48
3.02
4.63
3.24
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
(b) mfactors
Figure 399. LSP Assessment Results, 16Story SMF RSA, BSE2 CP
394
(c) Key
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Floor
Floor
Roof
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
Base
6000
Roof
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
Base
7000
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
(a) ELF
(b) RSA
Figure 3100. LSP Assessment Results, Compression in Exterior Columns, 16Story SMF, BSE2
3.2.2.3.2
3.2.2.3.2.1
395
0.50
0.41
0.08
0.09
0.43
0.13
0.06
0.63
0.09
0.41
0.43
0.13
0.10
0.42
0.12
0.34
0.39
0.15
0.07
0.43
0.12
0.36
0.41
0.15
0.09
0.41
0.13
0.34
0.39
0.15
0.09
0.44
0.14
0.36
0.41
0.16
0.10
0.48
0.14
0.38
0.43
0.16
0.11
0.49
0.14
0.38
0.43
0.16
0.13
0.58
0.13
0.35
0.38
0.17
0.13
0.59
0.13
0.35
0.38
0.17
0.24
0.50
0.11
0.37
0.38
0.17
0.26
0.52
0.11
0.38
0.38
0.17
0.28
0.56
0.09
0.40
0.40
0.15
0.25
0.56
0.09
0.40
0.40
0.15
0.27
0.56
0.05
0.39
0.36
0.14
0.28
0.48
0.04
0.33
0.30
0.11
0.37
0.15
0.28
0.40
0.45
0.60
0.42
0.51
0.41
0.48
0.45
0.52
0.42
0.47
0.30
0.42
(a) DCRN
2.31
2.88
2.88
8.00
6.00
2.31
8.00
3.60
3.61
8.00
6.00
3.07
8.00
3.83
3.84
8.00
6.00
3.07
8.00
3.83
3.84
8.00
6.00
3.17
8.00
3.97
3.97
8.00
6.00
3.17
8.00
3.97
3.97
8.00
6.00
3.17
8.00
3.97
3.97
8.00
6.00
3.17
8.00
3.97
3.97
8.00
6.00
2.61
8.00
4.07
4.07
8.00
6.00
2.61
8.00
4.07
4.07
8.00
5.97
3.26
8.00
4.07
4.07
8.00
5.69
3.26
8.00
4.07
4.07
8.00
5.42
3.26
8.00
4.07
4.07
8.00
5.80
3.26
8.00
4.07
4.07
8.00
5.58
3.26
8.00
4.07
4.07
8.00
5.37
3.26
8.00
4.07
4.07
8.00
4.69
8.00
4.01
4.01
3.79
2.94
2.78
1.72
3.42
2.53
3.50
2.70
3.02
2.31
3.34
2.78
4.85
4.05
(b) mfactors
Figure 3101. LDP Assessment Results, 16Story SMF ELF, BSE1 LS
396
(c) Key
0.51
0.43
0.09
0.09
0.46
0.13
0.07
0.69
0.10
0.46
0.49
0.16
0.11
0.86
0.10
0.56
0.57
0.19
0.14
0.90
0.10
0.58
0.60
0.19
0.30
0.55
0.16
0.45
0.49
0.20
0.10
0.55
0.16
0.45
0.51
0.19
0.12
0.58
0.16
0.47
0.52
0.20
0.13
0.60
0.16
0.48
0.52
0.20
0.25
0.54
0.16
0.43
0.48
0.19
0.14
0.54
0.16
0.44
0.48
0.19
0.26
0.71
0.14
0.45
0.47
0.19
0.28
0.70
0.14
0.44
0.45
0.18
0.32
0.62
0.12
0.39
0.41
0.15
0.25
0.60
0.12
0.37
0.39
0.14
0.27
0.49
0.08
0.36
0.36
0.13
0.29
0.44
0.07
0.32
0.30
0.11
0.38
0.16
0.28
0.41
0.51
0.81
0.45
0.55
0.56
0.77
0.61
0.83
0.61
0.76
0.47
0.97
(a) DCRN
2.31
2.88
2.88
8.00
6.00
2.31
8.00
3.60
3.61
8.00
6.00
2.31
8.00
3.60
3.61
8.00
6.00
2.31
8.00
3.60
3.61
8.00
4.60
3.07
8.00
3.83
3.84
8.00
6.00
3.07
8.00
3.83
3.84
8.00
6.00
3.07
8.00
3.83
3.84
8.00
6.00
3.07
8.00
3.83
3.84
8.00
5.91
3.17
8.00
3.97
3.97
8.00
6.00
3.17
8.00
3.97
3.97
8.00
5.73
2.54
8.00
3.97
3.97
8.00
5.40
2.54
8.00
3.97
3.97
8.00
5.07
2.61
8.00
4.07
4.07
8.00
5.76
2.61
8.00
4.07
4.07
8.00
5.50
3.26
8.00
4.07
4.07
8.00
5.27
3.26
8.00
4.07
4.07
8.00
4.58
8.00
4.01
4.01
3.85
3.07
2.16
1.00
2.81
2.06
1.96
1.00
1.60
1.00
1.51
1.00
2.78
1.00
(b) mfactors
Figure 3102. LDP Assessment Results, 16Story SMF RSA, BSE1 LS
397
(c) Key
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Floor
Floor
Roof
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
Base
6000
Roof
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
Base
7000
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
(a) ELF
(b) RSA
Figure 3103. LDP Assessment Results, Compression in Exterior Columns, 16Story SMF, BSE1
3.2.2.3.2.2
398
0.58
0.46
0.09
0.09
0.50
0.14
0.07
0.73
0.09
0.47
0.50
0.15
0.11
0.50
0.13
0.40
0.45
0.16
0.07
0.51
0.13
0.41
0.47
0.16
0.09
0.49
0.14
0.39
0.46
0.16
0.10
0.52
0.15
0.42
0.48
0.17
0.11
0.57
0.15
0.44
0.50
0.18
0.12
0.58
0.15
0.45
0.50
0.18
0.14
0.68
0.14
0.41
0.45
0.18
0.14
0.69
0.14
0.41
0.45
0.18
0.25
0.59
0.12
0.43
0.45
0.19
0.27
0.61
0.12
0.45
0.45
0.19
0.30
0.66
0.10
0.48
0.48
0.17
0.26
0.65
0.10
0.48
0.47
0.16
0.28
0.65
0.06
0.46
0.42
0.15
0.30
0.56
0.04
0.39
0.35
0.12
0.39
0.32
0.33
0.48
0.56
0.97
0.52
0.92
0.52
0.82
0.59
0.85
0.54
0.80
0.38
0.55
(a) DCRN
2.91
3.64
3.64
11.00
8.00
2.91
11.00
4.55
4.56
11.00
8.00
3.87
11.00
4.84
4.84
11.00
8.00
3.87
11.00
4.84
4.84
11.00
8.00
4.01
11.00
5.01
5.02
11.00
8.00
4.01
11.00
5.01
5.02
11.00
8.00
4.01
11.00
5.01
5.02
11.00
8.00
4.01
11.00
5.01
5.02
11.00
8.00
3.29
11.00
5.14
5.14
11.00
8.00
3.29
11.00
5.14
5.14
11.00
7.78
4.11
11.00
5.14
5.14
11.00
7.41
4.11
11.00
5.14
5.14
11.00
7.05
4.11
11.00
5.14
5.14
11.00
7.59
4.11
11.00
5.14
5.14
11.00
7.31
4.11
11.00
5.14
5.14
11.00
7.04
4.11
11.00
5.14
5.14
11.00
6.14
11.00
5.48
3.02
4.55
3.19
2.65
1.00
3.22
1.00
3.14
1.00
2.28
1.00
2.72
1.00
5.15
3.83
(b) mfactors
Figure 3104. LDP Assessment Results, 16Story SMF ELF, BSE2 CP
399
(c) Key
0.60
0.49
0.09
0.10
0.53
0.15
0.07
0.82
0.11
0.53
0.57
0.17
0.11
1.02
0.11
0.64
0.67
0.20
0.14
1.07
0.11
0.67
0.70
0.21
0.32
0.65
0.17
0.52
0.58
0.21
0.11
0.65
0.17
0.53
0.60
0.21
0.12
0.69
0.17
0.55
0.61
0.22
0.14
0.71
0.17
0.56
0.61
0.22
0.26
0.64
0.17
0.51
0.56
0.21
0.24
0.64
0.17
0.51
0.56
0.20
0.27
0.84
0.16
0.52
0.56
0.20
0.30
0.83
0.15
0.51
0.53
0.20
0.33
0.74
0.14
0.46
0.48
0.17
0.26
0.71
0.13
0.44
0.46
0.15
0.28
0.58
0.09
0.43
0.42
0.14
0.30
0.51
0.07
0.38
0.36
0.12
0.41
0.32
0.33
0.49
0.64
1.04
0.56
0.95
0.90
0.99
0.94
1.09
0.91
0.99
0.77
1.31
(a) DCRN
2.91
3.64
3.64
11.00
8.00
2.91
11.00
4.55
4.56
11.00
8.00
2.91
11.00
4.55
4.56
11.00
8.00
2.91
11.00
4.55
4.56
11.00
6.02
3.87
11.00
4.84
4.84
11.00
8.00
3.87
11.00
4.84
4.84
11.00
8.00
3.87
11.00
4.84
4.84
11.00
8.00
3.87
11.00
4.84
4.84
11.00
7.74
4.01
11.00
5.01
5.02
11.00
7.96
4.01
11.00
5.01
5.02
11.00
7.47
3.21
11.00
5.01
5.02
11.00
7.02
3.21
11.00
5.01
5.02
11.00
6.58
3.29
11.00
5.14
5.14
11.00
7.52
3.29
11.00
5.14
5.14
11.00
7.18
4.11
11.00
5.14
5.14
11.00
6.88
4.11
11.00
5.14
5.14
11.00
5.94
11.00
5.48
3.00
4.66
3.45
1.97
1.00
2.62
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
(b) mfactors
Figure 3105. LDP Assessment Results, 16Story SMF RSA, BSE2 CP
3100
(c) Key
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Floor
Floor
Roof
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Base
6000
7000
Roof
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Base
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
(a) ELF
(b) RSA
Figure 3106. LDP Assessment Results, Compression in Exterior Columns, 16Story SMF, BSE2
3.2.2.3.3
T1
4.12
4.67
K1
64.0
45.5
y
24.6
25.8
Vy
1571
1177
Ke
63.8
45.6
Te
4.13
4.66
peak
62.3
41.1
h
1.21
1.23
Vpeak
1617.0
1203.6
W
21782
21649
Cm
1.00
1.00
C0
1.29
1.36
Table 320. NSP Analysis Parameters, 16Story SMF BSE2 CP (kip, inch)
Design
ELF
RSA
Sa
0.22
0.20
R
3.04
3.60
C1
1.00
1.00
C2
1.00
1.00
t
47.4
56.7
Vt
1617.0
1196.3
d
47.4
41.1
P
0.03
0.04
0.45
0.34
0.00
0.02
0.09
0.08
Rmax
6.58
7.09
R Rmax
OK
OK
Rmax
10.53
7.54
R Rmax
OK
OK
Table 321. NSP Analysis Parameters, 16Story SMF BSE1 LS (kip, inch)
Sa
0.15
0.13
R
2.03
2.40
C1
1.00
1.00
C2
1.00
1.00
t
31.6
37.8
Vt
1581.9
1202.9
d
31.6
37.8
P
0.02
0.05
0.25
0.31
0.00
0.02
0.05
0.07
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.7
0.101
ELF (FirstOrder)
ELF (SecondOrder)
ELF Idealized Backbone
2000
1800
0.092
0.083
0.073
1600
(24.6,1571.0)
1400
0.064
A
B
1200
0.055
0.046
1000
(71.0,942.6)
800
600
400
0.037
0.028
0.018
0.009
200
0.000
0
0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
3102
(47.4,1617.0)
Design
ELF
RSA
2000
1800
0.092
RSA (FirstOrder)
RSA (SecondOrder)
RSA Idealized Backbone
0.083
1600
0.074
1400
0.065
(41.1,1203.6)
1200
0.055
(25.8,1177.0)
1000
0.046
B
800
600
0.037
(73.5,706.2)
0.028
400
200
0.018
0.009
0.000
0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
3.0%
1st Story
2nd Story
3rd Story
4th Story
5th Story
6th Story
7th Story
8th Story
9th Story
10th Story
11th Story
12th Story
13th Story
14th Story
15th Story
16th Story
Roof
2.5%
2.0%
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
3103
2200
3.0%
1st Story
2nd Story
3rd Story
4th Story
5th Story
6th Story
7th Story
8th Story
9th Story
10th Story
11th Story
12th Story
13th Story
14th Story
15th Story
16th Story
Roof
2.5%
2.0%
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
Of particular interest in the pushover curves is the large disparity between the peak base shears developed
in the ELF and RSAdesigned buildings (RSA / ELF = 1204 / 1617 = 0.74), a 26 percent change. At first
glance, this is greater than the 15 percent difference in design base shears allowed by ASCE 7. Upon further
inspection, it can be reasoned that the primary contribution to this disparity is due to the increase in strength
provided to the ELFdesigned frame to satisfy drift provisions in ASCE 7 (i.e., 15 percent plus additional
strength). See NSP discussion in the 8story results for more information.
Figure 3111 illustrates which frame columns are forcecontrolled for flexure for both the NSP and NDP;
red circles indicate anticipated plastic hinge locations that are forcecontrolled for flexure at the target
displacement. As shown in the figure, the forcecontrolled columns do not align between the two frames
the axial load ratios for the exterior base columns are 0.39 and 0.59 for the ELF and RSAdesigned frames,
respectively. This illustrates the sensitivity of results due to variations between the nonadaptive loading
profile in the NSP and that used for design. Figure 3112 through Figure 3115 illustrate the DCRN values
if greater than unity for the ELF and RSAdesigned frames at the target displacement for the LS BPL at
the BSE1 EHL and CP BPL at the BSE2 EHL. These figures illustrate the demands when the system is
loaded to the right. All component actions for the beamtocolumn connections, columns (assuming
deformationcontrolled), and panel zones satisfy the LS and CP BPL acceptance criteria at the target
displacements for both designs.
Several exterior columns, including those at the base of the frame for the RSAdesigned frame, are forcecontrolled for flexure at the target displacement. Forcecontrolled base columns are problematic for a region
that is expected to experience inelastic strain demands. Therefore, the acceptance criterion for these flexural
actions is based on the forcecontrolled lowerbound elastic PM interaction (ASCE 41 Equation 512). As
discussed previously, variations in PM interaction curves add complexity to nonlinear flexural hinge
3104
model. Essentially, a nonlinear hinge based on the expected yield surface of the section must be
accompanied by another model that can measure the lowerbound strength of the member (one for each
axis of buckling). For simplicity, failing of the acceptance criteria (without computing interaction values)
is selfevident because of the development of plastic hinges in the frame columns. Because plastic hinges
have developed in the base columns in the ELFdesign frame, flexural actions therefore do not satisfy the
intended elastic acceptance criteria. Conversely, the forcecontrolled columns in the RSA frame satisfy the
intended elastic acceptance criteria; however, member stability would still need to be verified.
B
Sym. Abou t
E
Roof
16th Floor
15th Floor
14th Floor
13th Floor
12th Floor
11th Floor
10th Floor
9th Floor
RS A NDP LS & CP
RS A NS P C P
8th Floor
7th Floor
(ELEV = 88 ft.)
6th Floor
(ELEV = 74 ft.)
5th Floor
(ELEV = 60 ft.)
RS A NDP LS & CP
RS A NS P LS & CP
4th Floor
(ELEV = 46 ft.)
3rd Flo or
(ELEV = 32 ft.)
RS A NDP CP
2nd Floor
(ELEV = 18 ft.)
RS A NDP LS & CP
RS A NS P LS & CP
Figure 3111. Schematic of Flexural Actions in Columns, 16Story SMF (NSP and NDP)
3105
E
Roof
16th Flo or
15th Flo or
14th Flo or
13th Flo or
12th Flo or
11th Flo or
DCRN 1.0
0.9 DCRN < 1.0
10th Flo or
9th Flo or
8th Flo or
7th Flo or
(ELEV = 88 ft.)
6th Flo or
(ELEV = 74 ft.)
5th Flo or
(ELEV = 60 ft.)
4th Flo or
(ELEV = 46 ft.)
3rd Floor
(ELEV = 32 ft.)
2nd Floor
(ELEV = 18 ft.)
Figure 3112. NSP Assessment Results, 16Story SMF ELF, BSE1 LS (+push to right)
3106
E
Roof
16th Flo or
15th Flo or
14th Flo or
13th Flo or
12th Flo or
11th Flo or
DCRN 1.0
0.9 DCRN < 1.0
10th Flo or
9th Flo or
8th Flo or
7th Flo or
(ELEV = 88 ft.)
6th Flo or
(ELEV = 74 ft.)
5th Flo or
(ELEV = 60 ft.)
4th Flo or
(ELEV = 46 ft.)
3rd Floor
(ELEV = 32 ft.)
2nd Floor
(ELEV = 18 ft.)
Figure 3113. NSP Assessment Results, 16Story SMF RSA, BSE1 LS (+push to right)
3107
E
Roof
16th Flo or
15th Flo or
14th Flo or
13th Flo or
12th Flo or
11th Flo or
DCRN 1.0
0.9 DCRN < 1.0
10th Flo or
9th Flo or
8th Flo or
7th Flo or
(ELEV = 88 ft.)
6th Flo or
(ELEV = 74 ft.)
5th Flo or
(ELEV = 60 ft.)
4th Flo or
(ELEV = 46 ft.)
3rd Floor
(ELEV = 32 ft.)
2nd Floor
(ELEV = 18 ft.)
Figure 3114. NSP Assessment Results, 16Story SMF ELF, BSE2 CP (+push to right)
3108
E
Roof
16th Flo or
15th Flo or
14th Flo or
13th Flo or
12th Flo or
11th Flo or
DCRN 1.0
0.9 DCRN < 1.0
10th Flo or
9th Flo or
8th Flo or
7th Flo or
(ELEV = 88 ft.)
6th Flo or
(ELEV = 74 ft.)
5th Flo or
(ELEV = 60 ft.)
4th Flo or
(ELEV = 46 ft.)
3rd Floor
(ELEV = 32 ft.)
2nd Floor
(ELEV = 18 ft.)
Figure 3115. NSP Assessment Results, 16Story SMF RSA, BSE2 CP (+push to right)
3109
3.2.2.3.4
The earthquake record set used to assess the EW direction of MC16 is shown in Appendix A. For the ELF
design, the analysis successfully completed for all 14 records at the BSE1 and BSE2 EHL. For the RSA
design, the analysis successfully completed for all 14 records for the BSE1 EHL; however, four analyses
did not complete at the BSE2 EHL because of excessive lateral drift or solution nonconvergence.
Maximum axial compression force in the exterior column lines from the record set are shown previously in
the linear assessment sections.
Figure 3116 through Figure 3119 show the performance of the beam hinges (i.e., beamtocolumn
connections) at the BSE1 (LS BPL) and BSE2 (CP BPL) for the ELF and RSAdesigned frames,
respectively. The results from the LSP, LDP, and NSP (loaded to the right) are included in the figures.
Comparison discussions between the various procedures are addressed subsequently. As is evident from
the figures, the ELFdesigned frame performs better than the RSAdesigned frame; however, recall that the
ELF procedure is not permitted in this case. Results of the RSAdesigned frame indicate that the beamto
column connections have difficulty satisfying the CP BPL acceptance criteria at the BSE2 EHL (based on
mean response). In contrast to the mean response, the median response indicates better performance because
it is less influenced by large deformations resulting from component strength loss potentially resulting in
collapse of the system. Consequently, the median is potentially a more stable performance metric when
analyzing a large number of ground motion records, but should be restrained relative to a mean value.
Floor ID
The average ratio of secondary to primary component acceptance criteria for an RBS beamtocolumn
connection for all W18 sections and deeper is 1.49 for the CP SPL (1.47 for the LS SPL). The figures for
the RSAdesigned frame illustrate that this value is exceeded in the beamtocolumn connections at the
BSE2 EHL. This highlights the rapid progression towards a collapse state when several components are
strained past the deformation associated with their peak strengthsee 3.1.4.2.
Roof
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Base
0.0
1Median
1Mean
184th
1Mean+1std
2Median
2Mean
284th
2Mean+1std
1NSP
2NSP
LSP (max)
LDP (max)
1 = Left Hinge
2 = Right Hinge
Bay BC
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Bay CD
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Bay DE
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Figure 3116. NDP Assessment Results, Beam Hinges, 16Story SMF ELF, BSE1 LS
3110
1.0
Floor ID
Roof
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Base
Bay BC
Bay CD
1 = Left Hinge
2 = Right Hinge
1Median
1Mean
184th
1Mean+1std
2Median
2Mean
284th
2Mean+1std
1NSP
2NSP
LSP (max)
LDP (max)
Bay DE
Floor ID
Figure 3117. NDP Assessment Results, Beam Hinges, 16Story SMF RSA, BSE1 LS
Roof
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Base
1Median
1Mean
184th
1Mean+1std
2Median
2Mean
284th
2Mean+1std
1NSP
2NSP
LSP (max)
LDP (max)
1 = Left Hinge
2 = Right Hinge
Bay BC
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Bay CD
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Bay DE
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Figure 3118. NDP Assessment Results, Beam Hinges, 16Story SMF ELF, BSE2 CP
3111
1.2
Floor ID
Roof
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Base
1Median
1Mean
184th
1Mean+1std
2Median
2Mean
284th
2Mean+1std
1NSP
2NSP
LSP (max)
LDP (max)
1 = Left Hinge
2 = Right Hinge
Bay CD
Bay BC
0
Bay DE
7
Figure 3119. NDP Assessment Results, Beam Hinges, 16Story SMF RSA, BSE2 CP
The previous figures illustrate for the RSAdesigned frame that the component strengths provided by drift
and stability control measures in ASCE 7 at MCER (equal to the BSE1 here) are not significant enough
to overcome the demands to satisfy the assessment criteria at the BSE2 (taken here as MCER). First, strong
panel zones reduce the allowable deformations in the acceptance criteria and component model for the
exterior beamtocolumn connections. Second, base hinge modeling could have a drastic effect on the
performance of the beamtocolumn connections. This further highlights the change in story demands as
column base hinges develop, an influence not addressed in elastic design analysis. In contrast, the results
indicate that the ELFdesigned frame satisfies the criteria by a considerable margin.
Figure 3111 (see NSP section) illustrates which flexural actions in the frame columns are forcecontrolled
for both the NSP and NDP. Figure 3120 and Figure 3121 show the performance of the column hinges for
the CP BPL criteria at the BSE2 EHL assuming deformationcontrolled flexural actions (LS BPL for the
BSE1 is not shown unless assessment at BSE2 illustrates performance concerns). Column hinges at the
base experience inelastic strain demands (yield corresponds to a DCRN 0.15 in the figures). Mean response
results also indicate column hinges develop up the height of the frame. However, this phenomenon is more
likely associated to the number of collapses rather than a trigger mechanism initiating a structural collapse;
median results may be a more stable metric in this case. Similarly, the exterior base columns in the RSA
frame are forcecontrolled for flexure. The DCRN results for the LSP and LDP are based on an interaction
equation and not from MUD / mMCE, or MUF / MCL, which would be a more physically consistent metric for
comparison against the results from the nonlinear assessment procedures. Nonetheless, the linear results
are generally not applicable here because most columns are forcecontrolled for flexure in the linear
assessment procedures. Though there is a fundamental difference in how the DCRN is computed for the
linear and nonlinear procedures, the linear assessment results show similar distributions of demands and
location of potential performance concerns.
3112
Floor ID
Roof
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Base
Col. Line B
Col. Line C
Col. Line D
Median
Mean
84th
Mean+1std
NSP
LSP
LDP
Col. Line E
Floor ID
Figure 3120. NDP Assessment Results, Column Hinges, 16Story SMF ELF, BSE2 CP
Roof
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
Base
Col. Line B
Col. Line D
Col. Line C
Col. Line E
Median
Mean
84th
Mean+1std
NSP
LSP
LDP
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Figure 3121. NDP Assessment Results, Column Hinges, 16Story SMF RSA, BSE2 CP
Figure 3122 and Figure 3123 show the curvature ductility demand of the column hinges (i.e., section
strength) at the BSE2 EHL. Figure 3124 and Figure 3125 show the elastic member strength interaction
results at the BSE2 EHL. The results indicate that the columns above the base in the ELFdesigned frame
satisfy the intended lowerbound acceptance criteria whereas the columns in the RSAdesigned frame
consistently do not satisfy these acceptance criteriaa result of the number of analyses that did not
complete.
3113
Floor ID
Roof
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
Base
Col. Line D
Col. Line C
Col. Line B
Col. Line E
Median
Mean
84th
Mean+1std
NSP
LSP
LDP
Floor ID
Figure 3122. NDP Assessment Results, Column Hinges, 16Story SMF ELF, BSE2 Yield
Roof
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Base
Median
Mean
84th
Mean+1std
NSP
LSP
LDP
0
Figure 3123. NDP Assessment Results, Column Hinges, 16Story SMF RSA, BSE2 Yield
3114
Floor ID
Roof
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
7
6
5
4
3
2
Base
0.0
Col. Line B
Col. Line C
Col. Line D
Col. Line E
See LSP and LDP
for forcecontrolled
columns.
See NSP for
forcecontrolled
columns.
Median
Mean
84th
Mean+1std
LSP
LDP
0.5
1.0
1.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Floor ID
Figure 3124. NDP Assessment Results, Column Members, 16Story SMF ELF, BSE2 CP
Roof
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Base
0.0
Col. Line B
Col. Line C
Col. Line D
Col. Line E
See LSP and LDP
for forcecontrolled
columns.
See NSP for
forcecontrolled
columns.
Median
Mean
84th
Mean+1std
LSP
LDP
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Figure 3126 and Figure 3127 show the performance of the panel zones for the CP BPL criteria at the BSE
2 (LS BPL for the BSE1 is not shown). The deformation demands are significantly lower than the CP
acceptance criteria. Converting the results to total deformation / yield deformation indicates that the
demands for the BSE2 are consistently less than 4y. These results illustrate that the panel zones are
stronger than required by the assessment criteriasee discussion in the 4story NDP section.
3115
Floor ID
Roof
Col. Line B
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
6
5
4
3
2
Base
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Col. Line C
Col. Line D
Col. Line E
Median
Mean
84th
Mean+1std
NSP
LSP
LDP
Floor ID
Figure 3126. NDP Assessment Results, Panel Zones, 16Story SMF ELF, BSE2 CP
Roof
Col. Line B
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
Base
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Col. Line C
Col. Line D
Col. Line E
Median
Mean
84th
Mean+1std
NSP
LSP
LDP
Figure 3127. NDP Assessment Results, Panel Zones, 16Story SMF RSA, BSE2 CP
3116
ASCE 41 requires all frame components that do not satisfy the acceptance criteria to be retrofitted or
replaced, even if only a small percentage of the total components fail the criteria (see ASCE 41 5.4.2.5).
Therefore, a building can only satisfy a selected BPL when all structural components satisfy the
corresponding SPL. Building behavior is rarely governed by the response of a single component, with the
one notable exception being collapse resulting from failure of a column. It can be argued that a shortcoming
of ASCE 41 is the focus on component performance to ensure that all elements pass the evaluation, when
failures of individual elements may not lead to catastrophic failure.
Design choices, constructability considerations, code requirements, nonseismic loads, analytical modeling
assumptions, and other project specific requirements may add strength to critical components in a frame.
Further, allocation of component strengths within the frame because of the lateral force distribution adopted
in design can cause deviations of the component strengths from one story to another. Thus, capturing all
possible permutations, in essence, would create an infinitely large design space. Nonetheless, the change in
component strengths can significantly influence the DCRN values obtained from the ASCE 41 assessments.
Linear Assessment Procedures
The following discusses the analytical results for the noted components from the linear procedures for each
archetype building.
As noted previously, the LSP cannot be used to assess the EW component of MC16. This assessment is
included for comparison purposes and the results are shown as shaded in the tables in this section.
3.2.3.1.1
BeamtoColumn Connections
Table 322 provides a summary of the performance of the FR beamtocolumn connections (RBS) for each
linear assessment procedure and each BPL. The number listed in parentheses denotes the number of failed
components in the frameshown as bolded text. Also shown in the table is the percentage of failed
components compared to the total number of similar components. The results indicate that the RSAdesigned frame has difficulty satisfying the acceptance criteria when using the LSP for both the LS and CP
BPL whereas only the 4story ELFdesigned frame fails the CP BPL. In contrast, the performance of both
23
Beam hinges within the RBS are included in assessment of Type FR connection (controlling mechanism).
3117
frames improves when using the LDP, although the 4 and 16story RSAdesigned frames fail the CP BPL
acceptance criteria by a slight margin.
Table 322. Performance Summary of FR Connections (BC) per Frame, Linear Procedures
Archetype
Design
LSP
LS
LDP
CP
Ext. BC Fail (2)
Int. BC Fail (2)
17%
LS
CP
All BC Pass
All BC Pass
ELF
All BC Pass
RSA
All BC Pass
ELF
All BC Pass
All BC Pass
All BC Pass
All BC Pass
RSA
All BC Pass
All BC Pass
ELF
All BC Pass
All BC Pass
All BC Pass
All BC Pass
RSA
All BC Pass
4Story
8Story
16Story
Performance failures are generally increased by reduced acceptance criteria (i.e., mfactors) attributed to
panel zones strength, connection detailing, and spantodepth ratio, Lc / db. Section compactness
requirements in ASCE 41 match that required for design of highly ductile elements in AISC 341except
ASCE 41 uses expected in lieu of nominal material properties. As such, section compactness generally will
not trigger a reduction in new building designs. However, continuity plates in onesided connections
designed in accordance with AISC 341 and AISC 360 can trigger a reduction if tcf < bbf / 7 with tcp tbf / 2,
but also tcp < tbf. Further, AISC 358 requires that Lc / db 7 for an RBS beamtocolumn connection in an
SMF, but ASCE 41 requires a reduction in acceptance criteria when Lc / db > 10. Additionally, increasing
column sizes to offset the need for doubler plates can be problematic with regards to connection
performance (assuming adjacent beams are not similarly increased). Nonetheless, it is debatable if reduction
factors based on (cumulative) step functions are appropriate for components expected to experience
inelastic straining. Further research is needed to justify the fixed reductions to acceptance criteria for beam
tocolumn connections. The commentary for ASCE 41 should reference FEMA 355D (FEMA 2000c) in
lieu of FEMA 355F (FEMA 2000d) for connection detailing recommendations.
The results for the 16story archetype buildings indicate that drift and strength control (via stability
verification) in ASCE 7 provides a significant amount of member overstrength so that beamtocolumn
connections more easily satisfy the acceptance criteria (compared to the 8story which was primarily drift
controlled).
The easiest retrofit option for these frames is to increase the flexural strength (and hinge strength in the
beam) of the distressed connections so to offset any reductions due to panel zone strength and continuity
plates (see Rehabilitation Strategies in ASCE 41 2.5). However, this may adversely affect the performance
of other components of the frame (e.g., columns). In terms of ASCE 41 assessment performance, using
3118
doubler plates in lieu of upsizing the columns and keeping the beam spantodepth ratio less than 10 (but
greater than 7 if using linear procedures or 8 if using nonlinear procedures) may be more effective.
Additional costbenefit analyses are needed to validate the seismic performance of an SMF with these
constraints (assuming performance metrics and analysis are reflective of realistic conditions).
3.2.3.1.2
Panel Zones
Table 323 provides a summary of the performance of the panel zones for each linear assessment procedure
and each BPL. The results indicate that the panel zones consistently satisfy the performance criteria for the
LS and CP BPL for both procedures. The DCRN values all remained low, 0.10.3, indicating that panel
zone design based on the probable connection strength, Mpr, as well as conventional practice (e.g., increase
column sizes to offset the need for doubler plates) may tend toward producing strong panel zones under
ASCE 41. As noted above, this can adversely affect the beamtocolumn connection acceptance criteria.
Table 323. Performance Summary of Panel Zones (PZ) per Frame, Linear Procedures
Archetype
4Story
8Story
16Story
Design
ELF
RSA
ELF
RSA
ELF
RSA
LSP
LS
All PZ Pass
All PZ Pass
All PZ Pass
All PZ Pass
All PZ Pass
All PZ Pass
LDP
CP
All PZ Pass
All PZ Pass
All PZ Pass
All PZ Pass
All PZ Pass
All PZ Pass
LS
All PZ Pass
All PZ Pass
All PZ Pass
All PZ Pass
All PZ Pass
All PZ Pass
CP
All PZ Pass
All PZ Pass
All PZ Pass
All PZ Pass
All PZ Pass
All PZ Pass
Take for example a onesided connection where a W2476 beam frames to a W18106 column. The ratio
of shear in the panel zone at the probable flexural strength of the connection to shear yielding of the panel
zone is conservatively 0.98 (see Equation (318)) and increase to 1.07 when using 0.55Fy for Vy. This
indicates that the panel zone may not yield until the connection approaches its peak strength, generally
associated with CP. Research (FEMA 350 (FEMA 2000a)) has suggested that a balanced yield condition
between beam hinge and adjacent panel zone can increase the inelastic deformation capacity of a
connection. This condition has been adopted in ASCE 41. Current steel design practice in accordance with
AISC 341 does not impose a balanced yield condition.
C pr Z x 1.1Fy
594
0.95d b
V pr
0.98
Vy
0.6 1.1Fy d c twc 605
3.2.3.1.3
(318)
Member Crosssection Strength (flexural hinge) and Global Strength (member stability)
Table 324 provides a summary of the performance of the column members for each linear assessment
procedure and each BPL. Hinges in beam members that are part of the beamtocolumn connection are
discussed above and not addressed in this section. The number listed in parentheses denotes the number of
failed components in the frameshown as bolded text. Also shown in the table is the percentage of failed
components compared to the total number of similar components. Recall that section strength and member
strength of a column is combined into a single PM interaction equation for linear assessment procedures
in ASCE 41 (see ASCE 41 Equations 510, 511, and 512.) Consequently, identifying an efficient retrofit
3119
option for a column can be challenging because understanding and isolating the failure mechanism of the
column can be difficult.
Table 324. Performance Summary of Column Members (CM) per Frame, Linear Procedures
Archetype
Design
LSP
LDP
LS
CP
LS
CP
ELF
All CM Pass
All CM Pass
All CM Pass
All CM Pass
RSA
All CM Pass
All CM Pass
All CM Pass
All CM Pass
ELF
RSA
ELF
All CM Pass
All CM Pass
All CM Pass
RSA
All CM Pass
4Story
8Story
16Story
Several columns do not satisfy the assessment criteria using the interaction equation because of high axial
force and moment in the 8story and 16story archetype buildings. These members are all forcecontrolled
for both axial force and flexure because PUF exceeds 0.5PCLgenerally associated with weakaxis flexural
buckling. As such, MUF and MCL are used in the interaction equation (ASCE 41 Equation 512).
Determination of MUF is subject to the same limitations as PUF (see sections on assessment results). There
are columns where the forcecontrolled requirement does not result in a performance failure (e.g., some 16
story SMF columns). As noted previously, the force distribution used in the LSP directly contributes to the
increased column forces. However, generally speaking, the estimated axial load demands in the columns
are the least conservative approximations, as compared to more rigorous analysis procedures (see the axial
load figures, e.g., Figure 371). Exterior base columns in these frames consistently fail the acceptance
criteria. This result is problematic because flexure hinges are expected to develop at the base of these
columns. ASCE 41 does not provide guidance on how to assess columntobase connections similar to
beamtocolumn connections.
As discussed previously, it is of debatable validity that forcecontrolled response be triggered with PUF /
PCL in lieu of PUF / Pye, as was done in FEMA 273. The interaction equation in ASCE 41 used for the case
of outofplane instability and inplane flexure is also debatable; ASCE 41 would benefit from following
AISC 360 in this regard (see AISC 360 H1.3). ASCE 41 would also benefit from decoupling the single
interaction curve for member stability and section strength into two separate interaction equations as done
in AISC ASD Chapter N, Plastic Design (AISC 1989). Decoupling the stability and strength would provide
a clearer picture of potential retrofit schemes for frame columns. Nonetheless, some member stability
equations were derived from beamcolumns test results where column ends did not translate relative to each
other. Future research is required to justify updated interaction equations for assessment of beamcolumns
3120
with ASCE 41, as well as a critical examination of the acceptance criteria in regard to experimental test
results.
In addition to the above performance observations, the effects of additional strengthening of columns in
design should be recognized. The columns in the 4story frames are somewhat oversized from that required
from analysis to satisfy section compactness requirements in AISC 341, and therefore, the columns
efficiently satisfy the acceptance criteria, regardless of estimation of PCL. All the frame columns in the 4
story frames are deformationcontrolled for flexure. As a side note, there is also considerably less scatter in
the axial load demands in the columns from the various approximation methods.
3.2.3.1.4
Summary
Table 325 summarizes the performance of the archetype buildings in reference to the BSO for both linear
procedures. Table 326 provides the base shears computed with the linear assessment procedures. Column
performance (primarily at the base) from both assessment procedures controls the overall assessment of the
SMF frames. Base column failure in this analytical context is more detrimental to the overall structural
performance than beamtocolumn connection performance. As noted above, additional research is needed
concerning assessment criteria for beamtocolumn connections and columns. The qualitative ratings are
assigned primarily based on the performance of the column members and a few cases coupled with the
performance of the beamtocolumn connections. In the end, the 4 and 16story ELFdesigned frames
satisfy the seismic performance objective only using the LDP (recall from Chapter 2 that the ELF procedure
is not permitted for design of the 16story SMF).
Table 325. BSO Performance Summary of Archetype Buildings, Linear Procedures
Archetype
4Story
8Story
16Story
Design
ELF
RSA
ELF
RSA
ELF
RSA
BC
Fail
Fail
Pass
Fail
Pass
Fail
LSP
CM
Pass
Pass
Fail
Fail
Fail
Fail
PZ
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Design
ELF
RSA
ELF
RSA
ELF
RSA
BC
Pass
Fail
Pass
Pass
Pass
Fail
LDP
CM
Pass
Pass
Fail
Fail
Pass
Fail
PZ
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
The assessment results from the LSP and LDP illustrate that, on average, the ELFdesigned SMF performs
better than the RSAdesigned SMF for all archetype buildings. This can be attributed to the increased
strength and stiffness provided to the ELFdesigned frames (see Table 24) by differences in the ELF and
RSA procedures, including associated scaling provisions, in ASCE 7.
The LDP consistently results in lower DCRN values than the LSP for both the ELF and RSAdesigned
frames for all archetype buildings, an indication that a more accurate distribution of seismic demands (based
on elastic modes) is better captured in taller frames. However, assessment of the RSAdesigned frame
consistently illustrates inferior performance using the LSP compared to the LDP because of the variation
between the distribution of seismic demands and the allocation of component strengths within the frame.
This variation is not as substantial when assessing the ELFdesigned frame with the LDP. Moreover, the
lateral force distribution in the LSP does not capture higher modes well, leading to conservative estimates
3121
of column forces in the taller frames. This can be problematic for beamcolumns due to the lowerbound
estimate of compressive strength, PCL.
Table 326. Summary of Base Shears, Linear Procedures (kips)
EHL
BSE1
BSE2
Routine
LSP
LDP
Ratio
LSP
LDP
Ratio
4Story
ELF
RSA
1696
1380
1585
1334
0.93
0.97
2545
2070
2377
2000
0.93
0.97
8Story
ELF
RSA
2176
1646
1974
1545
0.91
0.94
3264
2470
2996
2318
0.92
0.94
16Story
ELF
RSA
2977
2574
2710
2382
0.91
0.93
4466
3862
4065
3573
0.91
0.93
Analytical results based on componentlevel performances obtained from the LSP and LDP suggest that
special moment frames designed in accordance with ASCE 7 and its referenced standards have difficulty
achieving the selected seismic performance objective of an existing building intended to be equivalent to a
new building. This notion is driven by the performance of the columns and beamtocolumn connections.
The results for the columns can be enhanced by more mechanistically consistent column provisions and
analytical modeling parameters. Although the acceptance criteria for a connection are derived from a highly
vetted testing program, enhancement to the transference of nonlinear test results to linear acceptance criteria
and the supplementary (cumulative) adjustment factors could be investigated.
Nonlinear Assessment Procedures
The following discusses the analytical results for the noted components from the nonlinear procedures for
each archetype building.
As noted previously, the NSP is permitted for the frames but requires supplemental verification using the
LDP. The following summaries for the NSP reflect results only from the NSP (see previous for the linear
verification using the LDP). For the NDP, results are mainly discussed in reference to the mean response
from the set of records except where noted otherwise.
3.2.3.2.1
BeamtoColumn Connections
Table 327 provides a summary of the performance of the FR beamtocolumn connections (RBS) for each
nonlinear assessment procedure and each BPL. The number listed in parentheses denotes the number of
failed components in the frameshown as bolded text. Also shown in the table is the percentage of failed
components compared to the total number of similar components. Similar to the results from the linear
procedures, the RSAdesigned frames have difficulty satisfying the acceptance criteria when using the NDP
for both the LS and CP BPL. Although the median response is biased less by a collapsed state of a given
frame than the mean response, the results are not significantly improved, except for the 16story SMF. The
NDP consistently indicates poorer performance of the connections than that given by the NSP alone. The
ELFdesigned frames consistently satisfy the performance criteria for both the LS and CP BPL for both
procedures, except for the 8story frame under the BSE2 EHL using the NDP, which has a special situation
described subsequently.
3122
The notable performance concerns of the beamtocolumn connections is due to the cumulative penalty
associated with strong panel zones and connection detailing per AISC 341 (i.e., continuity plate thickness
in onesided connections)see LSP and LDP assessment results discussions. Further, the spantodepth
ratio requirements change between linear and nonlinear procedures. In many cases, the spantodepth ratio
triggered a reduction to the linear criteria but not similarly to the nonlinear criteria. Moreover, base hinges
in the exterior columns in the 8story frames directly influenced the rapid progression toward a collapsed
state and, in turn, the poor performance of the beamtocolumn connections.
Table 327. Performance Summary of FR Connections (BC) per Frame, Nonlinear Procedures
Archetype
NSP
Design
NDP
(based on mean response of record set)
LS
CP
LS
CP
ELF
All BC Pass
All BC Pass
All Pass
All Pass
RSA
All BC Pass
ELF
All BC Pass
All BC Pass
All BC Pass
RSA
All BC Pass
All BC Pass
ELF
All BC Pass
All BC Pass
All BC Pass
All BC Pass
RSA
All BC Pass
All BC Pass
All BC Pass
4Story
8Story
16Story
3.2.3.2.2
Panel Zones
Table 328 summarizes the performance of the panel zones for each nonlinear assessment procedure for the
CP BPL. Similar to the results from the linear procedures, panel zones consistently satisfy the performance
criteria for the LS and CP BPL for both procedures. The number listed in parentheses denotes the number
of failed components in the frameshown as bolded text. Also shown in the table is the percentage of
failed components compared to the total number of similar components. The DCRN values all remained
small compared to unity (see LSP and LDP assessment results discussions). The panel zones consistently
do not achieve four times the yield shear strain at BSE2 EHLthe deformation associated with the panel
zone strength given in AISC 360 J. This strain level is associated with panel zone design given in AISC
360 J at 2/3MCER (taken here to be BSE1 EHL) using Mpr. The third floor of the 8story RSAdesigned
SMF is the only frame that shows a potential issue with panel zones. As discussed previously, this is a
corollary of beamtocolumn connection performance and base column hinging and not a panel zone
performance concern. It is not yet fully understood whether good performance of panel zones is strictly due
to increased strengths resulting from drift criteria, conservative design approaches (for the panel zones), or
industry practice of increasing column size.
3123
Table 328. Performance Summary of Panel Zones (PZ) per Frame, Nonlinear Procedures
Archetype
NSP
Design
NDP
(based on mean response of record set)
LS
CP
LS
CP
ELF

All PZ Pass

All PZ Pass
RSA

All PZ Pass

All PZ Pass
ELF

All PZ Pass

All PZ Pass
RSA

All PZ Pass

Ext. PZ Pass
Int. PZ Fail (2)
6%
ELF

All PZ Pass

All PZ Pass
RSA

All PZ Pass

All PZ Pass
4Story
8Story
16Story
3.2.3.2.3
Member Crosssection Strength (flexural hinge) and Global Strength (member stability)
Table 329 provides a summary of the performance of the column hinges for each nonlinear assessment
procedure for the CP BPL Hinges in beam members that are part of the beamtocolumn connection are
discussed above and not addressed in this section. The number listed in parentheses denotes the number of
failed components in the frameshown as bolded text. Also shown in the table is the percentage of failed
components compared to the total number of similar components. In addition to assessment results, the
strongcolumn weakbeam (SCWB) philosophy prescribed in AISC 341 was verified to confirm locations
of expected hinges at the BSE2 EHL (CP BPL).
Base column hinges at the exterior of the 8story frames consistently fail the performance criteria. These
failures are a corollary of the modeling parameters for PM hinges in ASCE 41 (see linear discussion).
These columns are forcecontrolled for flexure in the 8story ELFdesigned frame and the 16Story RSAdesigned frame (shaded in the table) for the NSP and NDP. Still, the axial force demand, Pmax, is from an
individual record and is, therefore, biased by the behavior of the frame to that record. As such, it is difficult
to capture recordtorecord variability on force and deformationcontrolled response directly in the analysis
for a set of ground motion records. Recall that the linear procedures also identified concerns with these
columns.
Establishing the inplane column hinge model and performance metrics as a function of the outofplane
flexural buckling strength, when governs PCL, can be problematic for wideflange columns. More so, when
the gravity load alone produces an axial force greater than 0.2PCL, which is the case in the exterior base
columns in the 8story frames (see calculations below). These column base hinges reach the CP deformation
limit prior to the adjacent beamtocolumn connections. The maximum axial force from the NDP in this
column (and hinge component) is 992 kips, which provides an axial load ratio, P / PCL, of 0.6 (which would
3124
require forcecontrolled action). The axial load ratio based on the section axial strength using expected
material properties, P / Pye, is 0.35 (which would require deformationcontrolled action). Consequently,
modeling the section flexural strength of a column hinge using the section axial strength of that section
would not result in a forcecontrolled condition. This was the approach taken in FEMA 273, the predecessor
of ASCE 41. Further, it is theoretically inconsistent to model the component strengths within the same
column as a function of both Pye and PCL. As is evident in the 8story frame response, base column failures
can initiate a rapid progression towards a collapsed state, analytically speaking.
W18175 (8Story ELFdesigned SMF Exterior Base Column):
Table 329. Performance Summary of Column Hinges (CH) per Frame, Nonlinear Procedures
Archetype
NSP
Design
NDP
(based on mean response of record set)
LS
CP
LS
CP
ELF

All CH Pass
SCWB ok

All CH Pass
SCWB ok
RSA

All CH Pass
SCWB ok

All CH Pass
SCWB ok
ELF


RSA


ELF

All CH Pass
SCWB ok

All CH Pass
SCWB ok
RSA

All CH Pass
SCWB ok

4Story
8Story
16Story
Table 330 summarizes the performance of the column member strength for each nonlinear assessment
procedure for the CP BPL. ASCE 41 does not provide guidance on checking column member stability when
using the nonlinear procedures unless the column is designated as forcecontrolled. It is mechanistically
inconsistent to adjust material properties between section strength and member stability for a given column
3125
(i.e., hinge uses Pye and member uses PCL). Except for the 8story ELF and RSAdesigned frames, which
indicate column hinges form in the upper stories using the NDP, analytical results of the member stability
interaction curves indicate that column members satisfy the performance criteria. Nonetheless, the inplane
stability of a column with plastic hinges from inplane flexure is highly complex and is a topic that is not
well understood in the literature or implicitly or explicitly addressed in ASCE 41 for the nonlinear
procedures. Experimental testing on deep wideflanged steel beamcolumns has illustrated that the weakaxis buckling strength of a wideflange is not affected by plastic hinges from inplane flexure.
Table 330. Performance Summary of Column Members (CM) per Frame, Nonlinear Procedures
Archetype
4Story
8Story
16Story
3.2.3.2.4
NDP
(based on mean response of record set)
LS
CP

All CM Pass
NSP
Design
ELF
LS

CP
All CM Pass
RSA

All CM Pass

All CM Pass
ELF

All CM Pass

All CM Pass
RSA

All CM Pass

All CM Pass
ELF

All CM Pass

All CM Pass
RSA

All CM Pass

All CM Pass
Summary
Table 331 summarizes the performance of the archetype buildings in reference to the BSO for both
nonlinear procedures. Column hinge performance, primarily in the base columns, from both assessment
procedures controls the overall assessment of the frames. Base column failure is more detrimental to the
overall structural performance than beamtocolumn connection performance. As noted above, additional
research is needed on assessment criteria for beamtocolumn connections and columns. In the end, only
the 4 and 16story ELFdesigned frames satisfy the seismic performance objective using either nonlinear
procedure (recall from Chapter 2 that the ELF procedure is not permitted for design of the 16story SMF).
The shaded area in the table indicates which frames do not satisfy the NSP criteria due to supplemental
verification using the LDP (see linear discussion above). The qualitative ratings are assigned primarily
based on the performance of the column members and, for a few cases, the performance of the columns
coupled with the performance of the beamtocolumn connections.
Table 331. BSO Performance Summary of Archetype Buildings, Nonlinear Procedures
Archetype
4Story
8Story
16Story
NSP
Design
ELF
RSA
ELF
RSA
ELF
RSA
BC
Pass
Fail
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
CH
Pass
Pass
Fail
Fail
Pass
Pass
Design
PZ
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
ELF
RSA
ELF
RSA
ELF
RSA
NDP
(based on mean response of record set)
BC
CH
PZ
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Fail
Pass
Fail
Fail
Fail
Fail
Fail
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Fail
Fail
The assessment results from the NSP and NDP illustrate that on average the ELFdesigned SMF performs
better than the RSAdesigned SMF for all archetype buildings. This can be attributed to the increased
3126
strength and stiffness provided to the ELFdesigned frames (see Table 24 and Table 25) by differences in
the ELF and RSA procedures, including associated scaling provisions, in ASCE 7.
The NSP (without supplemental verification) consistently results in lower DCRN values than the NDP for
both the ELF and RSAdesigned frames for all archetype buildings, an indication that a more accurate
distribution of seismic demands is not well captured in taller frames using the NSP (LDP results are
consistently greater than NSP, albeit a direct comparison is problematic as discussed previously). Nonlinear
results indicate that the NSP has a tendency to underestimate the demands in the upper stories. This occurs
primarily because of the differences in the distribution of seismic demands and the lack of modal
representation other than the fundamental mode in the NSP. This effect was also noticed in NIST GCR 10
9179: Applicability of Nonlinear MultiDegreeofFreedom Modeling for Design (NIST 2010c).
The results from the NDP are sensitive to excitation input, analysis parameters, and component modeling.
In this study, generalized component models were incorporated with degradation effects calibrated to an
experimental test. Future research should critically examine the applicability of the generalized modeling
parameters for steel components in ASCE 41. Experimental research has shown that subassembly tests can
have large scatter in acceptable performance given the stochastic variations in the type of loading, that being
cyclical, nearfault, random, etc. (e.g., SAC project). Future research should investigate the influence of the
loading protocol adopted to establish the deterministic acceptance criteria for connections and member
hinges.
Analytical results based on componentlevel performances obtained from the NSP and NDP suggest that
special moment frames designed in accordance with ASCE 7 and its referenced standards have difficulty
achieving the selected seismic performance objective of an existing building intended to be equivalent to a
new building. This notion is driven by the performance of the columns and beamtocolumn connections.
The results for the columns can be enhanced by more mechanistically consistent column provisions and
analytical modeling parameters. Although the acceptance criteria for a connection are derived from a highly
vetted testing program, enhancement to the (cumulative) adjustment factors to the criteria could be
investigated.
Comparison between Linear and Nonlinear Assessment Results
Table 332 summarizes the performance of the archetype buildings for each analysis procedure. The results
indicate that the linear procedures consistently provide DCRN values greater than that given by the nonlinear
procedures, highlighting the conservatism in the linear assessment procedures. As discussed previously,
direct comparison of results between linear and nonlinear procedures can be problematic, except for direct
comparison of the distribution of results. Still, on average, the LSP and LDP are capable of identifying
potential performance concerns within critical areas of the frame as compared to the results from the NSP
and NDP. Consistency is evident in the global performance rating of the 8story SMF as well as frames
designed per the MRSA procedure among the various assessment procedures. However, not all component
performance failures align between the procedures. The conservatism of the linear procedures is also
apparent, as expected.
3127
The nonlinear procedures provide a more rigorous assessment approach as compared to the linear
procedures. The results from the LSP, and to a lesser extent the LDP, indicate more performance failures
in components than identified using the nonlinear procedures. The results presented emphasize the inherent
conservatism in the linear procedures. However, this conservatism is coupled with a reduction in required
resources and analytical proficiency. Certainly for the NDP, the effects of ground motion selection and
scaling can be significant, including the number of records adopted to achieve a reasonable level of
statistical confidence and the method by which the records were chosen with a bias to achieve an unfairly
beneficial binary outcome. Moreover, some of the higher mode periods fall directly in localized high energy
regions of the response spectrum resulting in increased demands that cannot be captured efficiently in a
linear analysis using a smooth generalized spectrum. Furthermore for the NSP, the force distribution is
potentially inadequate for frames that exhibit increased higher mode participation, either elastically or
triggered by nonlinearity.
Table 332. BSO Performance Summary of Archetype Buildings
Archetype
4Story
8Story
16Story
Design
LSP
LDP
NSP
ELF
RSA
ELF
RSA
ELF
RSA
Fail
Fail
Fail
Fail
Fail
Fail
Pass
Fail
Fail
Fail
Pass
Fail
Pass
Fail
Fail
Fail
Pass
Fail
NDP
(based on mean
response of
record set)
Pass
Fail
Fail
Fail
Pass
Fail
In contrast to the nonlinear procedures, the linear analysis model and assessment is implied to be less
rigorous and more conservative. As already discussed, the linear procedures yielded more conservative
results for the deformationcontrolled components. The linear procedures can also illustrate the trend in
demands but may fail to highlight critical performance zones within a given frame.
The columns that failed the linear criteria are typically forcecontrolled because of high axial loads, a result
of using PUF / PCL in lieu of PUF / Pye to model flexural hinge strength and trigger forcecontrolled response.
In comparison to the results from the NDP, the linear procedures produced conservative estimates of poor
performance. On average, the linear procedures slightly overestimate the axial force demand in the exterior
columns. Although there is general agreement between the procedures on which members may pose a risk,
the results from the NDP illustrate that the column hinges can satisfy the performance criteria if the hinges
were not forcecontrolled using PCL, which is generally governed by outofplane flexural buckling.
Enhancements to the assessment of beamcolumns could consider using a dual assessment criterion that
evaluates stability and flexural hinging separately (as is done for the NDP in this study).
3128
This report presents the results of a study investigating the correlation between the seismic performance of
an ASCE 7 codecompliant building and its performance as quantified using ASCE 41 analysis procedures
and structural performance metrics. This investigation is performed by evaluating a suite of structural steel
buildings in a high seismicity region that are designed using ASCE 7 and evaluated using ASCE 41. The
basic question is whether the standards for designing new steel buildings and assessing existing steel
buildings provide consistent levels of performance. An additional outcome of this research is to advance
the stateofknowledge in PBSD and assessment of buildings using ASCE 41. Further, results provide the
technical background for provisions that target equivalent seismic performance between a new building and
an existing building that is required to meet the seismic performance objective of a new building.
This chapter highlights significant observations and conclusions from the seismic assessment of the
archetype buildings using four assessment procedures prescribed in ASCE 41. General findings and
recommendations are based on the collective results for the seismic forceresisting system. More indepth
findings specific to the system are in the relevant subsections in this chapter, as well as in relevant sections
of the assessment discussion in Chapter 3. Although the primary emphasis of this study is on benchmarking
ASCE 41 assessment procedures, questions arise that may be more applicable to the design criteria used
rather than to the assessment resultsthese items are identified in the section about future research.
4.1
This report presents the results of the structural seismic performance assessment using ASCE 41 procedures
and performance measures of buildings utilizing steel special moment frames (SMF) as the lateral forceresisting system (LFRS).
A suite of archetype buildings that incorporate SMFs along one principal direction of the buildings is
designed in accordance with ASCE 7. The suite consists of 4, 8, and 16story buildings designed using
both the Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure and Modal Response Spectrum Analysis. Both analysis
procedures are used to provide a generally applicable range of LFRS strength within the selected seismic
intensity region. As such, a LFRS may include significant overstrength to resist nonseismic loads or satisfy
other design criteria. A design space of varied building parameters is used to investigate the effects of
building height, design methodology, and other LFRSspecific geometric modifications on seismic
performance. In reality, the design space is infinitely large and many design choices made in this study can
also have different configurations to evaluate the variation in performance specific to a design choice (e.g.,
study of a range of doubler plate thicknesses in an SMF and their influence on frame column performance).
The seismic performance assessment of the building suite is conducted using both linear and nonlinear
analysis procedures prescribed in ASCE 41:
41
For this study, the performance assessment targets the Basic Safety Objective (BSO) prescribed in ASCE
41 with the interrelated goals of Life Safety (LS) Building Performance Level (BPL) at the Basic Safety
Earthquake1 (BSE1) earthquake hazard level (EHL) and Collapse Prevention (CP) BPL at the BSE2
EHL. This performance objective is chosen to align with the intended structural performance objective of
an ordinary building in ASCE 7, which is qualitatively defined here as life safety provided by collapse
prevention of the building, given a maximum considered earthquake (MCE) event.
To evaluate seismic assessment criteria, each component of the SMFs is designated as a primary component
in accordance with ASCE 41. Similarly, quantitative performance measures (i.e., acceptance criteria) for
primary components are used for all assessment procedures, although performance measures for secondary
components are permitted for some primary components. The consistent use of primary acceptance criteria
keeps all components and associated assessment results correlated among the assessment procedures for
this study.
As stated earlier, the goals of this research are as follows:
Assess new structural steel buildings utilizing SMFs designed per ASCE 7 requirements and, in
turn, evaluated using ASCE 41,
Develop a qualitative link between the performance implied in ASCE 7 in light of the performance
identified by ASCE 41 procedures and performance measures,
Provide guidance or technical support for improved or new provisions in ASCE 41 (and to a lesser
extent, ASCE 7),
Reduce uncertainty in firstgeneration PBSD procedures for performancebased seismic
assessment, and
Identify any inconsistencies, ambiguities, and confusing provisions in ASCE 41
In reference to developing a link between ASCE 7 and ASCE 41, the primary difficulty in equating the two
standards is rooted in their disjointed performance objectives. That is, acceptance criteria for a component
in ASCE 41 are not directly calibrated to the seismic performance objective of ASCE 7, which is a 10
percent probability of partial or total collapse given an MCE eventthat is MCER (or one percent
probability of partial or total collapse in 50 years). Equating the two objectives of the standards would imply
that only one structural performance level with an associated earthquake hazard level can be coupled: that
being, CP at the MCER. However, this would be difficult based on a memberlevel binary performance
solution. Consequently, the question becomes what percentage of components needs to fail the associated
CP SPL to achieve a 10 percent probability of total or partial collapse given an MCER event? Future research
should assess the archetype buildings in FEMA P695 analysis to ascertain the collapse probability in
relation to the ASCE 7 performance objective. Results from that study can be used to probabilistically relate
the Rfactor in ASCE 7 to the mfactors and inelastic deformations using story drift. Clearly, the study
presented in this report presumes that the Rfactor used for design has been derived to provide the intended
42
collapse performance objective. As such, the analysis results do not necessarily reflect satisfactory or
unsatisfactory performance in relation to the seismic performance objective of ASCE 7.
A consequence of a deterministictype component evaluation (i.e., pass or fail) is that analytical results,
depending on the accuracy of the model and analysis algorithms, can be independent of the behavior of the
system. Individual member performance and the potential need to retrofit or replace it are therefore based
on an analysis output rather than the influence of the component performance on the system performance.
This is a challenging issue to overcome, and only recently has there been some progress made (e.g., FEMA
P695 and FEMA P58 (FEMA 2012)) toward having the ability to probabilistically correlate member
performance to system performance. However, these efforts are not without their limitations and debatable
performance metrics. It is still yet to be determined whether practitioners will accept these developing
methods because of the time and resources needed to successfully apply their recommendations. However,
ASCE 41 is available and being used for performancebased seismic engineering of building systems and
components. In many cases, the acceptance criteria in ASCE 41 are being used to justify computed seismic
performance to buildings officials as being satisfactory. The question is what seismic performance is being
justified: the objective defined in ASCE 41 or that intended in ASCE 7? If satisfying ASCE 7, then this
would infer that the CP SPL associated with the MCER (taken as the BSE2) defined in ASCE 41 matches
the intended collapse performance of ASCE 7. A significant effort is still needed to bring ASCE 41 to the
stateoftheart and equivalent to ASCE 7. In this regard, assessment provisions are meaningless without
the technical support provided by experimental research and subsequent case studies that evaluate how the
research findings affect component and system performance.
4.2
The following discussion summarizes notable assumptions employed in this study and other limitations of
the work that could impact the results, which form the basis for the conclusions and observations.
Building System and Component Characteristics for Design and Assessment
The archetype buildings are representative of a specific type of building, which uses a seismically
designed system to resist lateral loads and deformations. The selected system in this study
represents one design option out of the many available for steel framed buildings. In designing the
SFRS, there are many specific design assumptions made that play an important role in resisting
lateral loads and deformations. Different selections for frame configuration, plan layout, bay
spacing, height, connection details, and magnitude of nonseismic loads all could affect the
assessment results.
The buildings are regular in layout and configuration as defined in both ASCE 7 and ASCE 41.
Irregular building configurations can affect seismic performance and are not addressed in this
study, as they could complicate the comparisons that are being made.
The archetype buildings are simple in concept and do not contain stairwells, elevator cores,
architectural setbacks, atriums or other features found in typical buildings. The goal here is to study
the basic performance of the SFRS in resisting lateral loads and deformations without the
complexity posed by other attributes found in buildings today.
43
Strength and stiffness of specific secondary components, as defined in ASCE 41, were not fully
represented in the mathematical model for linear and nonlinear analyses (e.g., shear tab connection
for gravity framing, faade, stairs, etc.). This assumption, while reasonable from an analysis
standpoint, highlights a difference in requirements between ASCE 7 provisions for design and
ASCE 41 provisions for assessment (ASCE 7 12.7 and ASCE 41 3.2.2).
Composite action developed between primary and secondary structural components and the portion
of slab they support was not included in the mathematical model for seismic design or assessment.
This approach is consistent with that used by many practitioners and provides presumably
conservative results because floor slabs are not active in providing composite action and added
moment capacity. Composite action was included for the moment frame beams for verifying elastic
story drifts under servicelevel wind loading.
The columntobase connections of the SFRS and the seismic base of the buildings were assumed
to be horizontally, vertically, and rotationally restrained, resulting in a fixed connection to the
ground. The base of nonSFRS columns were rotationally unrestrained. Soilstructure interaction
effects, modeling the flexibility of the soil and / or the foundation components, and modelling
partiallyrestrained columntobase connections were not included in this study. Inclusion of these
effects would likely affect the assessment results. However, inclusion of the effects of the soilfoundation flexibility into the analysis is complex and not well established at the present time.
Moreover, current design practice commonly does not include soilfoundation effects; columnto
base connections to the building foundations are often idealized models, as is done in this study.
No formal investigation was included in this study to evaluate the accuracy of the quantitative
modeling parameters for nonlinear analysis or acceptance criteria for linear and nonlinear analysis
provided in ASCE 41 for primary or secondary component models. There is a project currently
ongoing with ATC (ATC114: Development of Accurate Models and Efficient Simulation
Capabilities for Collapse Analysis to Support Implementation of Performance Based Seismic
Engineering) that will examine the component modelling parameters and acceptance criteria for
specific components.
Structural Analysis
No formal investigation was included in this study to evaluate the accuracy of the analysis
algorithms in the software packages used for structural analysis. These software packages are the
same as those used by practitioners. The stability of solution algorithms when the stiffness and
strength of the component models have significantly degraded can vary between software packages.
Therefore, any software accuracy limitations encountered in this study are consistent with those
present in design offices.
The methodology used in this study for ground motion selection and scaling resulted in a set of
earthquake records that may not be applicable or suitable for a specific site. A different record set
selected by engineering judgment, selected by revising the parameters of the methodology, or
developed from an alternative methodologycould affect the assessment results. However, the
process employed here is consistent with that used in practice, representing a typical building site
in an area with a high level of seismicity.
44
No formal investigation was included in this study to evaluate all potential sources of uncertainty or error,
or whether multiple sources of error are correlated. The question of uncertainties in the analytical models,
solution algorithms, material properties and even potential asbuilt final dimensions and positions of
members are all beyond the scope of this study. The load and resistance factor design (LRFD) philosophy
in use for structural design today are based on pioneering work on uncertainties in material and load
characterizations performed starting in the 1950s. Whether a new similar large national effort to that
conducted for LRFD is required today is not clear. Quantifying the effect of any source of uncertainty or
error, as it relates to the design or assessment of buildings to resist earthquake motions, is a significant issue
and would require its own research program to study all of the aspects.
4.3
This section highlights significant observations and conclusions from the seismic assessment of the
archetype buildings. Topics are categorized as general or system specific. Additionally, more indepth
discussions of the observations and conclusions specific to the SFRS are in the relevant subsections in this
chapter as well as in relevant summary sections of the assessment discussion.
ASCE 41
The following observations and conclusions can be drawn from this study. Topics are grouped by either
general applicability to ASCE 41 assessment procedures or specific to the structural system.
General
The following general topics focus on observations identified by the assessment provisions for the selected
assessment methods:
The LSP generally results in more conservative normalized demand to capacity ratios, DCRN,
values than that of the LDP, because of the differences in the distribution of seismic demands and
the lack of modal representation other than the fundamental mode in the LSP.
The NSP generally results in less conservative DCRN values than that of the NDP, contrary to what
would be expected with increasing the analytical complexity, because of the differences in the
distribution of seismic demands and the lack of modal representation other than the fundamental
mode in the NSP.
The nonlinear procedures provide a more rigorous assessment approach as compared to the linear
procedures. The results from the LSP, and to a lesser extent the LDP, indicate more performance
failures in components than identified using the nonlinear procedures. The results presented
emphasize the inherent conservatism in the linear procedures. However, this conservatism is
accompanied by a reduction in required analytical resources and proficiency of the analyst.
The linear procedures can illustrate the trend in demands but may fail to highlight critical
performance zones within a given frame.
45
design routines (i.e., ELF and RSA). This makes it difficult to definitively suggest that using ASCE
41 to design a new SMF would produce a system capable of achieving the seismic performance
objective of ASCE 7. Future research is needed to evaluate the collapse probability of a new system
strengthened by ASCE 41 relative to the seismic performance objective of ASCE 7. The same is
required for a new system that has component strengths reduced from that required by ASCE 7 to
meet an ASCE 41 performance objective. Further, the adequacy of the components of the enhanced
frame (those required to satisfy ASCE 41) would be dependent upon which analysis procedure is
used to iterate between design and assessment, and therefore the fidelity of the analytical model
and analysis parameters.
Results of this study indicate that for ASCE 41 to be used as a seismic design procedure for new
steel buildings, as a performancebased alternative to ASCE 7 (see ASCE 7 1.3.1.3), acceptance
criteria for the various analysis methods must be calibrated to each other to consistently result in a
uniform collapse risk. Additionally, ASCE 41 would need to reference materialspecific design
standards (e.g., AISC 341) for their seismic design requirements, as well as consistent requirements
for defining acceptance criteria for a component (e.g., plastic rotation).
4.4
The following sections identify items for future research. The recommendations are grouped by the
applicable standard: ASCE 41, ASCE 7, and AISC 341 / 360 / 358.
ASCE 41
General
The following items are general considerations for future studies to enhance ASCE 41 assessment
provisions:
The archetype buildings should be analyzed using the methodology formulated in FEMA P695.
This will provide the requisite data to identify the collapse probability of the systems (or frames)
in relation to the intended collapse objective of ASCE 7. However, the same seismic performance
factors as used in design should be used in the analysis. Results from this study can be used to
probabilistically relate the Rfactor in ASCE 7 to mfactors and inelastic deformations using story
drift.
Research should investigate the implementation of risktargeted collapse assessment criteria into
ASCE 41 similar to the design philosophy introduced in ASCE 710. As such, comparison of
system fragility curves should be done to correlate the risktarget of ASCE 7 and the risktarget of
an existing building intended to be equivalent to a new building.
Research should evaluate the influence of gravity framing (e.g., partially restrained shear tab
connections) on assessment results of the primary components of the SFRS.
Research should investigate alternative lateral force distributions for taller systems for the NSP,
including comparison between adaptive and nonadaptive loading.
47
Research should be conducted to determine the number of components that do not need to satisfy
the ASCE 41 component acceptance criteria while still permit the building to be classified as
meeting a performance objective.
Research should evaluate the systems used in this study by measuring demands against acceptance
criteria for secondary components to quantify variations in performance results; for example, the
RBS beamtocolumn connections in the MC8 buildings. Even if secondary component criteria
were implemented, the DCRN values still indicate unsatisfactory performance in the lower floors.
The primary acceptance criteria for the nonlinear procedures has been removed in ASCE 4113.
Based on some trends seen in this study, this should be done only if the acceptance criteria for
linear and nonlinear procedures have been correlated and calibrated.
Enhanced commentary is needed in ASCE 41, similar to the effort used to develop FEMA 274.
Commentary can be used to explain differences in component strengths between ASCE 41 and
ASCE 7 and its reference standards (e.g., AISC 341 and AISC 360). This effort would include
cleaning up incorrect references (e.g., AISC 341 or AISC 360, FEMA 355F or FEMA 355D).
Similarly, the commentary can detail the experimental tests used to derive the acceptance criteria.
Consideration should be given to reorganize Chapter 5 (Chapter 9 in ASCE 4113) to remove
systemtosystem references, most notably when they are not applicable. For example, a forcecontrolled column in an EBF cannot reference provisions for a column in a moment frame. This
chapter would benefit with an outline similar to AISC 341, where the section on member strength
is outlined similar to AISC 360. Therefore, the individual systems would reference a member
strength in lieu of another system that may or may not be applicable.
Fully Restrained Moment Frames
The following items are considerations for future studies to enhance ASCE 41 assessment provisions for
FR moment frames:
Case studies should examine the seismic performance and cost of SMFs with lighter column sizes
that include doubler plates. This costbenefit analysis will shed light on relating construction costs
to seismic performance and postearthquake repair costs for various regions of the country.
Research should investigate the assessment of panel zones in relation to the design methodology
using AISC 341, as well as a critical examination of the acceptance criteria in regard to
experimental test results. This research can be linked with the above study on the use of double
plates and lighter columns.
Case studies should investigate the frame design using the Direct Analysis Method in AISC 360
and the associated seismic assessment results. Some aspects of the Direct Analysis Method have
been introduced in ASCE 4113.
Research is needed to develop acceptance criteria and modeling parameters for columntobase
connections, including embedded connections.
Research is required to justify updated interaction equations for assessment of beamcolumns using
ASCE 41, as well as a critical examination of the acceptance criteria in regard to experimental test
results. Decoupling interaction equations into specific failure mechanisms and referencing highly
vetted design standards should be considered. Removing PCL as the basis for forcecontrolled
48
response and acceptance criteria for a column hinges (i.e., revert back to FEMA 273) and using PCE
when Fye is used to assess a flexure hinge in the same column should be considered.
Research should critically examine the applicability of the generalized modeling parameters in
ASCE 41 for plastic hinges in beams, beamtocolumn connections, and columns for use in the
nonlinear procedures.
Research should investigate the influence of the loading protocol adopted to establish the
deterministic acceptance criteria for connections and member hinges.
Research is needed to justify the fixed reductions (i.e., 0.8 factor) to acceptance criteria of FR beam
tocolumn connections based on connection detailing.
Research should investigate the correlation between acceptance criteria for the linear and nonlinear
procedures.
ASCE 7
The following items are considerations for future studies to enhance ASCE 7 provisions:
The assessment results illustrate that on average the ELFdesigned frames perform better than the
RSAdesigned frames for all archetype buildings. However, the ELF procedure is not permitted in
some cases. Research should investigate the applicability of the analysis limitations in terms of the
intended collapse objective of ASCE 7.
Research should investigate the lateral design force distributions in ASCE 7 and modal scaling
provisions, and their influence on the allocation of component strengths within a frame. Research
has indicated that higher modal base shear scaling may be warranted (NIST 2010b and NIST 2012).
Potential modifications to the MRSA procedure could also include scaling provisions to
additionally account for higher mode effects resulting from nonlinear response. Provisions can be
directly transferred to the linear procedures in ASCE 41.
Research efforts should evaluate incorporating other performance levels for design into ASCE 7
(NIST 2012).
section flexural strength of a wideflange column adopted in the nonlinear analysis (as well as that
prescribed in ASCE 41) is slightly different than that prescribed for the SCWB provision, which is
a conservative yield surface to cover many different column types. Efforts could couple the two
standards in terms of yield surfaces used to define the section flexural strength of a column.
Analysis results indicate that the axial force demand prescribed in the SCBW provision (i.e., using
o) is a reasonably conservative approximation compared to a full yield mechanism and results
from the NDP. The conservatism increases as the aspect ratio of the frame increases. Research
should investigate the applicability of a full yield mechanism for design.
Design of the frame columns was based on two interaction equations in accordance with AISC 360
H1.3 using the Effective Length Method. On average, this method provided acceptable minimum
sizes for column strength. In the upper stories of taller frames where drift control was not as
significant, a few (slender) column sizes were governed by outofplane stability (AISC 360
Equation H12) and also SCWB (i.e., Mnc < Mpc). However, research is needed to examine the
effects of the LateralTorsional Buckling Modification Factor, Cb, including the influence of axial
load and precurvature on Cb when computing the buckling strength of SMF columns. Similarly,
research should investigate the influence of a plastic hinge on deep wideflange column stability
see NIST GCR 1191713: Research Plan for the Study of Seismic Behavior and Design of Deep,
Slender WideFlange Structural Steel BeamColumn Members (NIST 2011c).
410
Appendix A
Analysis
A.1
The farfield record set (22 records, each with two horizontal components) from FEMA P695 (FEMA
2009a) is selected as the input motion database for the NDP; 14 of the 44 horizontal component records are
selected as the ground motion set for each archetype building, with no two records coming from the same
station. The records are normalized for magnitude, distance, and source conditions as discussed in FEMA
P695.
The scaled record set (see Ground Motion Selection and Scaling section below) for each archetype building
is taken directly as the Basic Safety Earthquake2 (BSE2) earthquake hazard level (EHL). Although this
EHL is not strictly the same as having a two percent probability of exceedance in 50 years, it is comparable,
and anticipated future changes in ASCE 4113 will likely match the seismic hazard defined in ASCE 710
(see Chapter 3). The scaled record set is factored by twothirds to represent the BSE1 EHL in lieu of
explicitly determining the ground motion parameters with a ten percent probability of exceedance in 50
years. No spectral shape modifier, , is used to adjust the seismic demands for either BSEs (FEMA 2009a;
Haselton et al. 2009), this is a topic of needed research.
As a side note, the goal initially was to analyze the archetype buildings using seven scaled pairs of ground
motion records along each principal axis of the structure (14 records in each direction). However, because
of complications in scaling orthogonal pairs for the maximum direction of response when a structure has
significantly different periods along the principal axes, it was decided to analyze 14 unique records
independently along each principal axissee above. This is permitted by ASCE 41 since requirements for
considering multidirectional seismic effects are not triggered in this studysee ASCE 41 3.2.7. Further,
there is no guidance regarding the application of scaled ground motion pairs for the maximum direction of
response when a structure has significantly different periods along the principal axes. Future research is
needed to provide provisions on scaling and application of ground motion pairs.
A.2
The ground motion selection and scaling procedure for each archetype building is described below. This
procedure was developed in consultation with select members of the peer review team. Each set of records
(14 total) is used for both the equivalent lateral force (ELF) and response spectrum analysis (RSA) designs
to gauge performance between the two. The process is as follows:
1. Determine the fundamental lateral mode period, T1, of the building in the direction being
considered not including gravity load effects (i.e., firstorder period) for both the ELF and RSA
A1
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
designs. Secondorder periods may also be computed with expected pointintime gravity loads
rather than factored loads. Determine the average (arithmetic mean) of the periods for the ELF and
RSA designs, T1,avg. This will keep the scaling of the two designs consistent.
For each of the 44 farfield component records (not the records computed from the square root of
the sum of the squares (SRSS) of the two horizontal components of an event), compute the error
between Sa from the recorded spectrum and Sa from the maximum considered earthquake (MCER)
design spectrum at each period between 0.2T1,avg and 1.5T1,avg. The period step used here is 0.01
second. The error at each period ranges from 0 to 1, with 0 being an identical match.
Sum the error values over the periods between 0.2T1,avg and 1.5T1,avg to get a single composite
error value for each record.
Scale each record to minimize the total error from step 3.
Select the 14 records with least total error. If both horizontal components of a specific station are
in the set, then remove the record with the larger error of the pair and select the next unique record
from the remaining record set. This step is repeated as needed until all records selected are from
different stations.
Compute the average spectrum from the record set (14 total) from step 5.
Scale the average spectrum from step 6 so that no value between 0.2T1,avg and 1.5T1,avg is less
than the MCER spectrum. The 1.3 factor in ASCE 41 1.6.2 is not included here, so as to address
the change of spectrum parameters from geomean to maximum direction response in ASCE 7 (this
factor will be removed in ASCE 4113).
Scale the record set from step 5 by the value computed in step 7. Therefore, there are two scaling
factors: step 4 and step 7.
Apply the total scaling factor (step 4 times step 7) to each component record in the set from step 5
and perform analysis.
direction and the average of this set scaled to meet the target spectrum. In summary, steps 1 to 5 in the
process identify the best fit to the ASCE 41 code spectrum (which matches ASCE 7). The average of this
set is computed and scaled similarly to that in ASCE 41without the 1.3 factor.
Other ground motion selection and scaling methods are discussed in NIST GCR 1191715: Selecting and
Scaling Earthquake Ground Motions for Performing ResponseHistory Analyses (NIST 2011d).
A.3
Table A1 summarizes the 14 strong motion records used for the nonlinear dynamic procedure (NDP) for
the EW direction of MC4 special moment frame (SMF). Figure A1 illustrates the set of acceleration
response spectra, original and scaled, and the scaled average spectrum. Figure A2 illustrates the
acceleration response spectra, original and scaled, for each select record. For comparison, the ASCE 41
code spectrum is shown in the figures. All records completed for the BSE1 and BSE2 for the ELF design.
All records completed for the BSE1 for the RSA design. All analyses except those using records 1, 4, 7, 9,
and 12 completed for the BSE2 for the RSA design.
Table A1. Ground Motion Records for EW Direction of MC4
ID
EQ No.
Event Name
Station
Comp.1
Error2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
34
12
31
10
5
28
17
15
22
3
14
41
29
7
Superstition Hills
Imperial Valley
Superstition Hills
Imperial Valley
Duzce, Turkey
Loma Prieta
Kocaeli, Turkey
Kobe, Japan
Landers
Northridge
Kobe, Japan
San Fernando
Manjil, Iran
Hector Mine
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
28
30
31
32
34
39
41
41
45
46
47
51
52
52
Notes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
BSE2
Scaling3
3.055
4.115
2.839
2.433
2.021
2.018
2.562
3.028
4.479
2.094
3.020
5.010
2.839
4.617
Component Number. See FEMA P695 Appendix A for additional parameters associated to each component of an event.
Single composite error value computed in Step 3.
Scaling factor for the component for the BSE2 or BSE1 EHL (BSE1 = BSE2).
Time step in seconds.
Total time of record in seconds.
A3
BSE1
Scaling3
2.037
2.744
1.893
1.622
1.347
1.345
1.708
2.019
2.986
1.396
2.013
3.340
1.893
3.078
Step4
Time5
0.010
0.005
0.005
0.010
0.010
0.005
0.005
0.010
0.020
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.020
0.010
23
40
40
100
56
40
28
41
44
20
41
28
54
46
7
Code
121222
120622
121211
120612
120411
121022
120811
120721
120912
120121
120712
121511
121111
120521
Average
Original EQ
Code
121222
120622
121211
120612
120411
121022
120811
120721
120912
120121
120712
121511
121111
120521
Average
Scaled EQ
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
0
Period (sec)
Period (sec)
T1,avg
0
0
Period (sec)
Figure A1. Acceleration Response Spectra: Original, Scaled, and Scaled Average Spectrum for EW Direction of MC4
A4
Code
121222 Scaled
121222 Unscaled
EQ 3
Spectral Acceleration (g)
EQ 2
Spectral Acceleration (g)
EQ 1
2
4
Code
120622 Scaled
120622 Unscaled
2
Code
121211 Scaled
121211 Unscaled
0
0
0
0
Period (sec)
Code
120612 Scaled
120612 Unscaled
EQ 5
Code
120411 Scaled
120411 Unscaled
Code
120721 Scaled
120721 Unscaled
2
Code
120912 Scaled
120912 Unscaled
0
0
Period (sec)
Period (sec)
EQ 9
Period (sec)
0
1
EQ 8
0
0
EQ 7
Code
121022 Scaled
121022 Unscaled
Code
120811 Scaled
120811 Unscaled
Period (sec)
0
0
Period (sec)
EQ 6
0
1
Period (sec)
EQ 4
Spectral Acceleration (g)
Period (sec)
Period (sec)
4.0
3.5
Code
120121 Scaled
120121 Unscaled
EQ 11
EQ 12
3.0
EQ 10
3
Code
120712 Scaled
120712 Unscaled
2.5
Code
121511 Scaled
121511 Unscaled
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
0
0.0
0
Period (sec)
Period (sec)
Period (sec)
EQ 14
EQ 13
4
Code
121111 Scaled
121111 Unscaled
Code
120521 Scaled
120521 Unscaled
0
0
Period (sec)
Period (sec)
Figure A2. Acceleration Response Spectra: Original and Scaled for Each Selected Record for EW Direction of MC4
A5
A.4
Table A2 summarizes the 14 strong motion records used for the NDP for the EW direction of MC8 (SMF).
Figure A3 illustrates the set of acceleration response spectra, original and scaled, and the scaled average
spectrum. Figure A4 illustrates the acceleration response spectra, original and scaled, for each select
record. For comparison, the ASCE 41 code spectrum is shown in the figures. All records completed for the
BSE1 for the ELF design. All analyses with records except 8, 10, and 13 completed for the BSE2 for the
ELF design. All analyses except those using records 8 and 14 completed for the BSE1 for the RSA design.
All analyses except those using records 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, and 14 completed for the BSE2 for the
RSA design.
Table A2. Ground Motion Records for EW Direction of MC8
I
D
1
2
3
4
5
6
Time5
0.005
0.020
0.010
0.005
0.010
0.010
40
44
100
40
56
23
1
1
2
1
1
1
63
63
66
67
74
74
3.034
4.768
6.846
8.760
5.307
2.844
2.023
3.179
4.564
5.840
3.538
1.896
0.020
0.005
0.010
0.005
0.010
0.005
54
90
28
30
46
40
2
2
80
88
9.476
0.993
6.318
0.662
0.005
0.005
37
90
Event Name
Station
Comp.1
Error2
12
21
10
27
5
34
Imperial Valley
Landers
Imperial Valley
Loma Prieta
Duzce, Turkey
Superstition
Hills
Manjil, Iran
ChiChi, Taiwan
San Fernando
Kocaeli, Turkey
Hector Mine
Superstition
Hills
Friuli, Italy
ChiChi, Taiwan
2
1
2
1
1
2
Abbar
TCU045
LA  Hollywood Stor
Arcelik
Hector
El Centro Imp. Co.
Tolmezzo
CHY101
7
8
9
10
11
12
29
39
42
19
7
31
13
14
44
38
Notes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
BSE1
Scaling3
2.575
1.894
1.581
3.656
1.358
2.088
Step4
29
56
58
59
61
62
BSE2
Scaling3
3.862
2.842
2.371
5.483
2.036
3.132
EQ No.
Component Number. See FEMA P695 Appendix A for additional parameters associated to each component of an event.
Single composite error value computed in Step 3.
Scaling factor for the component for the BSE2 or BSE1 EHL (BSE1 = BSE2).
Time step in seconds.
Total time of record in seconds.
A6
12
Code
120622
120911
120612
121021
120411
121222
121111
121421
121512
120821
120912
121211
121712
121412
Average
10
Scaled EQ
Original EQ
Code
120622
120911
120612
121021
120411
121222
121111
121421
121512
120821
120912
121211
121712
121412
Average
11
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Period (sec)
Period (sec)
2
Code
Average
0.2T1,avg
1.5T1,avg
T1,avg
0
0
Period (sec)
Figure A3. Acceleration Response Spectra: Original, Scaled, and Scaled Average Spectrum for EW Direction of MC8
A7
Code
120622 Scaled
120622 Unscaled
EQ 3
Spectral Acceleration (g)
EQ 2
Spectral Acceleration (g)
EQ 1
4
Code
120911 Scaled
120911 Unscaled
2
Code
120612 Scaled
120612 Unscaled
0
0
0
0
Period (sec)
Period (sec)
12
Period (sec)
11
EQ 4
9
8
7
Code
121021 Scaled
121021 Unscaled
6
5
4
3
2
EQ 5
EQ 6
10
Code
120411 Scaled
120411 Unscaled
Code
121222 Scaled
121222 Unscaled
1
0
0
0
0
0
Period (sec)
Period (sec)
EQ 8
4
Code
121111 Scaled
121111 Unscaled
EQ 7
Period (sec)
Code
121421 Scaled
121421 Unscaled
4
3
2
EQ 9
3
Code
121512 Scaled
121512 Unscaled
0
0
0
0
Period (sec)
Period (sec)
Period (sec)
Code
120821 Scaled
120821 Unscaled
4
3
2
EQ 12
Spectral Acceleration (g)
EQ 11
Spectral Acceleration (g)
EQ 10
5
2
Code
120912 Scaled
120912 Unscaled
2
Code
121211 Scaled
121211 Unscaled
1
0
0
0
0
0
Period (sec)
Period (sec)
Period (sec)
10
EQ 13
EQ 14
Spectral Acceleration (g)
8
7
6
Code
121712 Scaled
121712 Unscaled
5
4
3
2
Code
121412 Scaled
121412 Unscaled
1
0
0
0
Period (sec)
Period (sec)
Figure A4. Acceleration Response Spectra: Original and Scaled for Each Selected Record for EW Direction of MC8
A8
A.5
Table A3 summarizes the 14 strong motion records used for the NDP for the EW direction of MC16
(SMF). Figure A5 illustrates the set of acceleration response spectra, original and scaled, and the scaled
average spectrum. Figure A6 illustrates the acceleration response spectra, original and scaled, for each
select record. For comparison, the ASCE 41 code spectrum is shown in the figures. All analyses completed
for the BSE1 and BSE2 for the ELF design. All records completed for the BSE1 for the RSA design. All
analyses except those using records 1, 2, 5, and 10 completed for the BSE2 for the RSA design.
Table A3. Ground Motion Records for EW Direction of MC16
Comp.
ID
EQ No.
Event Name
Station
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
12
29
19
7
9
22
5
42
17
32
14
27
16
37
Imperial Valley
Manjil, Iran
Kocaeli, Turkey
Hector Mine
Imperial Valley
Landers
Duzce, Turkey
San Fernando
Kocaeli, Turkey
Superstition Hills
Kobe, Japan
Loma Prieta
Kobe, Japan
ChiChi, Taiwan
Notes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Error2
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
66
74
83
88
93
94
97
97
103
105
106
108
118
121
BSE2
Scaling3
3.664
3.295
8.383
4.992
3.061
3.089
2.724
7.119
1.673
2.940
4.286
6.015
7.346
1.241
Component Number. See FEMA P695 Appendix A for additional parameters associated to each component of an event.
Single composite error value computed in Step 3.
Scaling factor for the component for the BSE2 or BSE1 EHL (BSE1 = BSE2).
Time step in seconds.
Total time of record in seconds.
A9
BSE1
Scaling3
2.443
2.197
5.589
3.328
2.041
2.059
1.816
4.746
1.115
1.960
2.857
4.010
4.897
0.827
Step4
Time5
0.005
0.020
0.005
0.010
0.010
0.020
0.010
0.010
0.005
0.005
0.010
0.005
0.010
0.005
40
54
30
46
100
44
56
28
28
40
41
40
41
90
13
Code
120622
121111
120821
120521
120611
120912
121512
120411
120811
121212
120712
121021
120722
121411
Average
11
Scaled EQ
10
Original EQ
Code
120622
121111
120821
120521
120611
120912
121512
120411
120811
121212
120712
121021
120722
121411
Average
12
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Period (sec)
Period (sec)
2
Code
Average
0.2T1,avg
1.5T1,avg
T1,avg
0
0
Period (sec)
Figure A5. Acceleration Response Spectra: Original, Scaled, and Scaled Average Spectrum for EW Direction of MC16
A10
Code
120622 Scaled
120622 Unscaled
4
Code
121111 Scaled
121111 Unscaled
0
0
0
0
Period (sec)
Code
120521 Scaled
120521 Unscaled
2
Code
120611 Scaled
120611 Unscaled
0
0
Period (sec)
Period (sec)
Code
120912 Scaled
120912 Unscaled
0
2
EQ 6
Spectral Acceleration (g)
EQ 5
EQ 4
Period (sec)
Period (sec)
Code
120821 Scaled
120821 Unscaled
EQ 3
Spectral Acceleration (g)
EQ 2
Spectral Acceleration (g)
EQ 1
4
Period (sec)
6
4
Code
121512 Scaled
121512 Unscaled
3
2
EQ 8
EQ 9
EQ 7
5
Code
120411 Scaled
120411 Unscaled
Code
120811 Scaled
120811 Unscaled
1
0
0
0
0
0
Period (sec)
Period (sec)
Period (sec)
13
12
11
EQ 11
Code
121212 Scaled
121212 Unscaled
EQ 12
10
5
4
EQ 10
Code
120712 Scaled
120712 Unscaled
3
2
9
8
Code
121021 Scaled
121021 Unscaled
7
6
5
4
3
1
0
0
Period (sec)
Period (sec)
Period (sec)
EQ 14
Spectral Acceleration (g)
EQ 13
4
Code
120722 Scaled
120722 Unscaled
Code
121411 Scaled
121411 Unscaled
0
0
Period (sec)
Period (sec)
Figure A6. Acceleration Response Spectra: Original and Scaled for Each Selected Record for EW Direction of MC16
A11
A.6
Figure A7 through Figure A50 illustrate the recorded ground motion, Fourier amplitude (frequency and
period), and the five percent damped response spectra (displacement, velocity, acceleration) for each
component.
Acceleration (g)
0.2
0
0. 2
0. 4
5
10
15
Time (sec.)
20
25
Amplitude
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
Frequency (hz)
3.5
4.5
Displacement (inches)
Velocity (inches/sec)
EQ1NORTHR/ MUL009
0.4
80
10
5
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
60
40
20
0
Amplitude
Ac celeration (g)
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec.)
3.5
4.5
1.5
1
0.5
0
Figure A7. 1994 Northridge Earthquake at Beverly Hills, Mulholland Drive Station, Comp. 009
0. 5
5
10
15
Time (sec.)
20
25
Amplitude
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
Frequency (hz)
3.5
4.5
Displacement (inches)
15
Velocity (inches/sec)
80
10
5
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
60
40
20
0
Ac celeration (g)
3
Amplitude
Acceleration (g)
EQ2NORTHR/ MUL279
0.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec.)
3.5
4.5
2
1
0
Figure A8. 1994 Northridge Earthquake at Beverly Hills, Mulholland Drive Station, Comp. 279
A12
Acceleration (g)
0.2
0
0. 2
0. 4
2
10
12
Time (sec.)
14
16
18
Amplitude
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
Frequency (hz)
3.5
4.5
Displacement (inches)
Velocity (inches/sec)
EQ3NORTHR/ LOS000
0.4
60
10
5
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
40
20
0
Amplitude
Acceleration (g)
1.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec.)
3.5
4.5
1
0.5
0
Figure A9. 1994 Northridge Earthquake at Canyon Country WLC Station, Comp. 000
EQ4NORTHR/ LOS270
0. 5
2
10
12
Time (sec.)
14
16
18
Amplitude
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
Frequency (hz)
3.5
4.5
Velocity (inches/sec)
8
6
4
2
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
60
40
20
0
Acceleration (g)
2
Amplitude
Acceleration (g)
0.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec.)
3.5
4.5
1.5
1
0.5
0
Figure A10. 1994 Northridge Earthquake at Canyon Country WLC Station, Comp. 270
A13
0
0. 5
10
20
30
Time (sec.)
40
50
Amplitude
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
Frequency (hz)
3.5
4.5
20
15
10
5
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
60
Velocity (inches/sec)
Acceleration (g)
EQ5DUZCE/BOL000
0.5
40
20
0
Amplitude
Acceleration (g)
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec.)
3.5
4.5
2
1
0
Figure A11. 1999 Duzce, Turkey Earthquake at Bolu Station, Comp. 000
0
0. 5
10
20
30
Time (sec.)
40
50
Amplitude
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
Frequency (hz)
3.5
4.5
Displacement (inches)
0.5
15
Velocity (inches/sec)
80
10
5
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
60
40
20
0
Acceleration (g)
1.5
Amplitude
Acceleration (g)
EQ6DUZCE/BOL090
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec.)
3.5
4.5
1
0.5
0
Figure A12. 1999 Duzce, Turkey Earthquake at Bolu Station, Comp. 090
A14
0
0. 2
5
10
15
20
25
Time (sec.)
30
35
40
45
Amplitude
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
Frequency (hz)
3.5
4.5
Displacement (inches)
Acceleration (g)
0.2
10
Velocity (inches/sec)
EQ7HECTOR/ HEC000
40
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
30
20
10
0
Amplitude
Acceleration (g)
0.8
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec.)
3.5
4.5
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Figure A13. 1999 Hector Mine Earthquake at Hector Station, Comp. 000
0
0. 2
5
10
15
20
25
Time (sec.)
30
35
40
45
Amplitude
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
Frequency (hz)
3.5
4.5
Displacement (inches)
0.2
10
Velocity (inches/sec)
60
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
40
20
0
Acceleration (g)
1.5
Amplitude
Acceleration (g)
EQ8HECTOR/ HEC090
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec.)
3.5
4.5
1
0.5
0
Figure A14. 1999 Hector Mine Earthquake at Hector Station, Comp. 090
A15
0. 2
10
20
30
40
50
60
Time (sec.)
70
80
90
Amplitude
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
Frequency (hz)
3.5
4.5
Displacement (inches)
Acceleration (g)
20
Velocity (inches/sec)
EQ9IMPVALL/HDLT262
0.2
40
15
10
5
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
30
20
10
0
Amplitude
Acceleration (g)
0.8
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec.)
3.5
4.5
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Figure A15. 1979 Imperial Valley Earthquake at Delta Station, Comp. 262
0. 2
10
20
30
40
50
60
Time (sec.)
70
80
90
Amplitude
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
Frequency (hz)
3.5
4.5
Displacement (inches)
60
20
10
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
40
20
0
Acceleration (g)
1.5
Amplitude
Acceleration (g)
0.2
30
Velocity (inches/sec)
EQ10IMPVALL/HDLT352
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec.)
3.5
4.5
1
0.5
0
Figure A16. 1979 Imperial Valley Earthquake at Delta Station, Comp. 352
A16
Acceleration (g)
0.2
0
0. 2
0. 4
0
10
15
20
Time (sec.)
25
30
35
Amplitude
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
Frequency (hz)
3.5
4.5
Displacement (inches)
Velocity (inches/sec)
EQ11IMPVALL/HE11140
0.4
40
10
5
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
30
20
10
0
Amplitude
Acceleration (g)
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec.)
3.5
4.5
2
1
0
Figure A17. 1979 Imperial Valley Earthquake at El Centro Array Station #11, Comp. 140
0
0. 2
0
10
15
20
Time (sec.)
25
30
35
Amplitude
0. 4
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
Frequency (hz)
3.5
4.5
30
10
5
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
20
10
0
Acceleration (g)
2
Amplitude
Acceleration (g)
0.2
Displacement (inches)
Velocity (inches/sec)
EQ12IMPVALL/HE11230
0.4
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec.)
3.5
4.5
1.5
1
0.5
0
Figure A18. 1979 Imperial Valley Earthquake at El Centro Array Station #11, Comp. 230
A17
Acceleration (g)
0. 5
5
10
15
20
25
Time (sec.)
30
35
40
Amplitude
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
Frequency (hz)
3.5
4.5
Displacement (inches)
Velocity (inches/sec)
EQ13KOBE/NIS000
0.5
80
10
5
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
60
40
20
0
Amplitude
Acceleration (g)
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec.)
3.5
4.5
2
1
0
Figure A19. 1995 Kobe, Japan Earthquake at NishiAkashi Station, Comp. 000
0. 5
5
10
15
20
25
Time (sec.)
30
35
40
Amplitude
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
Frequency (hz)
3.5
4.5
Displacement (inches)
15
Velocity (inches/sec)
60
10
5
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
40
20
0
Acceleration (g)
2
Amplitude
Acceleration (g)
EQ14KOBE/NIS090
0.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec.)
3.5
4.5
1.5
1
0.5
0
Figure A20. 1995 Kobe, Japan Earthquake at NishiAkashi Station, Comp. 090
A18
0.1
0
0. 1
0. 2
5
10
15
20
25
Time (sec.)
30
35
40
Amplitude
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
Frequency (hz)
3.5
4.5
Displacement (inches)
Velocity (inches/sec)
Acceleration (g)
EQ15KOBE/SHI000
0.2
40
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
30
20
10
0
Amplitude
Acceleration (g)
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec.)
3.5
4.5
0.5
Figure A21. 1995 Kobe, Japan Earthquake at ShinOsaka Station, Comp. 000
0. 2
5
10
15
20
25
Time (sec.)
30
35
40
Amplitude
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
Frequency (hz)
3.5
4.5
Velocity (inches/sec)
8
6
4
2
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
30
20
10
0
Acceleration (g)
0.8
Amplitude
Acceleration (g)
EQ16KOBE/SHI090
0.2
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec.)
3.5
4.5
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Figure A22. 1995 Kobe, Japan Earthquake at ShinOsaka Station, Comp. 090
A19
0.2
0
0. 2
5
10
15
Time (sec.)
20
25
Amplitude
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
Frequency (hz)
3.5
4.5
Displacement (inches)
Velocity (inches/sec)
Acceleration (g)
EQ17KOCAELI/DZC180
60
30
20
10
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
40
20
0
Amplitude
Acceleration (g)
1.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec.)
3.5
4.5
1
0.5
0
Figure A23. 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey Earthquake at Duzce Station, Comp. 180
0
0. 2
5
10
15
Time (sec.)
20
25
Amplitude
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
Frequency (hz)
3.5
4.5
Displacement (inches)
0.2
20
Velocity (inches/sec)
60
15
10
5
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec)
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec)
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec)
3.5
4.5
40
20
0
Ac celeration (g)
1.5
Amplitude
Acceleration (g)
EQ18KOCAELI/DZC270
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec .)
3.5
4.5
1
0.5
0
Figure A24. 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey Earthquake at Duzce Station, Comp. 270
A20
0
0.2
5
10
15
Time (sec.)
20
25
Amplitude
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
Frequency (hz)
3.5
4.5
Velocity (inches/sec)
Acceleration (g)
EQ19KOCAELI/ARC000
0.2
6
4
2
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
15
10
5
0
Amplitude
Acceleration (g)
0.8
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec.)
3.5
4.5
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Figure A25. 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey Earthquake at Arcelik Station, Comp. 000
0.1
5
10
15
Time (sec.)
20
25
Amplitude
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
Frequency (hz)
3.5
4.5
Displacement (inches)
40
20
10
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
30
20
10
0
Acceleration (g)
0.8
Amplitude
Acceleration (g)
0.1
30
Velocity (inches/sec)
EQ20KOCAELI/ARC090
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec.)
3.5
4.5
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Figure A26. 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey Earthquake at Arcelik Station, Comp. 090
A21
0.1
0
0. 1
0. 2
5
10
15
20
25
Time (sec.)
30
35
40
Amplitude
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
Frequency (hz)
3.5
4.5
Displacement (inches)
Velocity (inches/sec)
Acceleration (g)
EQ21LANDERS/YER270
0.2
60
20
10
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
40
20
0
Amplitude
Acceleration (g)
0.8
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec.)
3.5
4.5
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Figure A27. 1992 Landers Earthquake at Yermo Fire Station, Comp. 270
0
0. 1
5
10
15
20
25
Time (sec.)
30
35
40
Amplitude
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
Frequency (hz)
3.5
4.5
Displacement (inches)
0.1
20
Velocity (inches/sec)
30
15
10
5
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
20
10
0
Acceleration (g)
0.8
Amplitude
Acceleration (g)
EQ22LANDERS/YER360
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec.)
3.5
4.5
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Figure A28. 1992 Landers Earthquake at Yermo Fire Station, Comp. 360
A22
0
0.2
5
10
15
Time (sec.)
20
25
Amplitude
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
Frequency (hz)
3.5
4.5
Displacement (inches)
Velocity (inches/sec)
Acceleration (g)
30
10
5
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
20
10
0
Amplitude
Acceleration (g)
1.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec.)
3.5
4.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.2
0.4
5
10
15
Time (sec.)
20
25
Amplitude
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
Frequency (hz)
3.5
4.5
Displacement (inches)
0.2
10
Velocity (inches/sec)
60
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
40
20
0
Acceleration (g)
1.5
Amplitude
Acceleration (g)
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec.)
3.5
4.5
1
0.5
0
A23
Acceleration (g)
0. 5
5
10
15
20
Time (sec.)
25
30
35
Amplitude
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
Frequency (hz)
3.5
4.5
Displacement (inches)
Velocity (inches/sec)
EQ25LOMAP/CAP000
0.5
60
10
5
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
40
20
0
Amplitude
Acceleration (g)
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec.)
3.5
4.5
2
1
0
Figure A31. 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake at Capitola Station, Comp. 000
0.2
0
0. 2
0. 4
5
10
15
20
Time (sec.)
25
30
35
Amplitude
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
Frequency (hz)
3.5
4.5
Velocity (inches/sec)
Displacement (inches)
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
60
40
20
0
Acceleration (g)
1.5
Amplitude
Acceleration (g)
EQ26LOMAP/CAP090
0.4
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec.)
3.5
4.5
1
0.5
0
Figure A32. 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake at Capitola Station, Comp. 090
A24
Displacement (inches)
0.5
5
10
15
20
Time (sec.)
25
30
35
Amplitude
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
Frequency (hz)
3.5
4.5
8
6
4
2
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
40
Velocity (inches/sec)
Acceleration (g)
EQ27LOMAP/G03000
0.5
30
20
10
0
Amplitude
Acceleration (g)
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec.)
3.5
4.5
2
1
0
Figure A33. 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake at Gilroy Array Station #3, Comp. 000
0
0.2
5
10
15
20
Time (sec.)
25
30
35
Amplitude
0.4
0
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
Frequency (hz)
3.5
4.5
40
10
5
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
30
20
10
0
Acceleration (g)
2
Amplitude
Acceleration (g)
0.2
Displacement (inches)
Velocity (inches/sec)
EQ28LOMAP/G03090
0.4
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec.)
3.5
4.5
1.5
1
0.5
0
Figure A34. 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake at Gilroy Array Station #3, Comp. 090
A25
Acceleration (g)
0. 5
5
10
15
20
25
30
Time (sec.)
35
40
45
50
Amplitude
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
Frequency (hz)
3.5
4.5
Displacement (inches)
Velocity (inches/sec)
EQ29MANJIL/ABBARL
0.5
40
10
5
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
30
20
10
0
Amplitude
Acceleration (g)
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec.)
3.5
4.5
2
1
0
Figure A35. 1990 Manjil, Iran Earthquake at Abbar Station, Longitudinal Direction
0. 5
5
10
15
20
25
Time (sec.)
30
35
40
45
Amplitude
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
Frequency (hz)
3.5
4.5
60
20
10
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
40
20
0
Acceleration (g)
3
Amplitude
Acceleration (g)
Displacement (inches)
Velocity (inches/sec)
EQ30MANJIL/ABBART
0.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec.)
3.5
4.5
2
1
0
Figure A36. 1990 Manjil, Iran Earthquake at Abbar Station, Transverse Direction
A26
0
0.2
5
10
15
20
25
Time (sec.)
30
35
Amplitude
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
Frequency (hz)
3.5
4.5
Displacement (inches)
Acceleration (g)
0.2
15
Velocity (inches/sec)
EQ31SUPERST/BICC000
40
10
5
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
30
20
10
0
Amplitude
Acceleration (g)
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec.)
3.5
4.5
0.5
Figure A37. 1987 Superstition Hills Earthquake at El Centro, Imperial County, Comp. 000
0
0.1
0.2
5
10
15
20
25
Time (sec.)
30
35
Amplitude
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
Frequency (hz)
3.5
4.5
Displacement (inches)
0.1
20
Velocity (inches/sec)
60
15
10
5
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
40
20
0
Acceleration (g)
0.8
Amplitude
Acceleration (g)
EQ32SUPERST/BICC090
0.2
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec.)
3.5
4.5
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Figure A38. 1987 Superstition Hills Earthquake at El Centro, Imperial County, Comp. 090
A27
0.2
0
0. 2
0. 4
5
10
Time (sec.)
15
20
Amplitude
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
Frequency (hz)
3.5
4.5
Displacement (inches)
Velocity (inches/sec)
Acceleration (g)
EQ33SUPERST/BPOE270
0.4
60
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
40
20
0
Amplitude
Acceleration (g)
1.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec.)
3.5
4.5
1
0.5
0
Figure A39. 1987 Superstition Hills Earthquake at Poe Road, Comp. 270
0
0. 2
5
10
Time (sec.)
15
20
Amplitude
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
Frequency (hz)
3.5
4.5
Displacement (inches)
0.2
15
Velocity (inches/sec)
30
10
5
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
20
10
0
Acceleration (g)
1.5
Amplitude
Acceleration (g)
EQ34SUPERST/BPOE360
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec.)
3.5
4.5
1
0.5
0
Figure A40. 1987 Superstition Hills Earthquake at Poe Road, Comp. 360
A28
EQ35CAPEMEND/RIO270
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
5
10
15
20
Time (sec.)
25
30
35
Amplitude
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
Frequency (hz)
3.5
4.5
8
6
4
2
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
40
Velocity (inches/sec)
Acceleration (g)
0.4
30
20
10
0
Amplitude
Acceleration (g)
1.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec.)
3.5
4.5
1
0.5
0
Figure A41. 1992 Cape Mendocino Earthquake at Rio Dell Overpass, Comp. 270
0.5
5
10
15
20
Time (sec.)
25
30
35
Amplitude
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
Frequency (hz)
3.5
4.5
Velocity (inches/sec)
Displacement (inches)
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
60
40
20
0
Acceleration (g)
3
Amplitude
Acceleration (g)
EQ36CAPEMEND/RIO360
0.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec.)
3.5
4.5
2
1
0
Figure A42. 1992 Cape Mendocino Earthquake at Rio Dell Overpass, Comp. 360
A29
0.2
0
0. 2
10
20
30
40
50
Time (sec.)
60
70
80
Amplitude
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
Frequency (hz)
3.5
4.5
Velocity (inches/sec)
Acceleration (g)
EQ37CHICHI/ CHY101E
40
30
20
10
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
80
60
40
20
0
Amplitude
Acceleration (g)
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec.)
3.5
4.5
0.5
Figure A43. 1999 ChiChi, Taiwan Earthquake at CHY101 Station, EW Component
0
0. 2
0. 4
10
20
30
40
50
Time (sec.)
60
70
80
Amplitude
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
Frequency (hz)
3.5
4.5
Displacement (inches)
0.2
100
Velocity (inches/sec)
150
50
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
100
50
0
Acceleration (g)
1.5
Amplitude
Acceleration (g)
EQ38CHICHI/ CHY101N
0.4
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec.)
3.5
4.5
1
0.5
0
Figure A44. 1999 ChiChi, Taiwan Earthquake at CHY101 Station, NS Component
A30
10
20
30
40
50
Time (sec.)
60
70
80
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
Frequency (hz)
3.5
4.5
Displacement (inches)
0.5
Amplitude
Acceleration (g)
20
Velocity (inches/sec)
EQ39CHICHI/TCU045E
0.5
60
15
10
5
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
40
20
0
Amplitude
Acceleration (g)
1.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec.)
3.5
4.5
1
0.5
0
Figure A45. 1999 ChiChi, Taiwan Earthquake at TCU045 Station, EW Component
0.5
10
20
30
40
50
Time (sec.)
60
70
80
Amplitude
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
Frequency (hz)
3.5
4.5
Velocity (inches/sec)
8
6
4
2
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
40
30
20
10
0
Acceleration (g)
1.5
Amplitude
Acceleration (g)
EQ40CHICHI/TCU045N
0.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec.)
3.5
4.5
1
0.5
0
Figure A46. 1999 ChiChi, Taiwan Earthquake at TCU045 Station, NS Component
A31
Acceleration (g)
0.1
0
0. 1
0. 2
5
10
15
Time (sec.)
20
25
Amplitude
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
Frequency (hz)
3.5
4.5
Displacement (inches)
Velocity (inches/sec)
EQ41SFERN/PEL090
0.2
30
10
5
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
20
10
0
Amplitude
Acceleration (g)
0.8
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec.)
3.5
4.5
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Figure A47. 1971 San Fernando Earthquake at Los Angeles Hollywood Store Station, Comp. 090
0
0. 1
5
10
15
Time (sec.)
20
25
Amplitude
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
Frequency (hz)
3.5
4.5
Velocity (inches/sec)
0.1
8
6
4
2
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
15
10
5
0
Acceleration (g)
0.8
Amplitude
Acceleration (g)
EQ42SFERN/PEL180
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec.)
3.5
4.5
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Figure A48. 1971 San Fernando Earthquake at Los Angeles Hollywood Store Station, Comp. 180
A32
Displacement (inches)
0.2
0
0.2
5
10
15
20
Time (sec.)
25
30
35
Amplitude
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
Frequency (hz)
3.5
4.5
3
2
1
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
30
Velocity (inches/sec)
Acceleration (g)
EQ43FRIULI/ ATMZ000
20
10
0
Amplitude
Acceleration (g)
1.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec.)
3.5
4.5
1
0.5
0
Figure A49. 1976 Fruili, Italy Earthquake at Tolmezzo Station, Comp. 000
0.2
0
0.2
5
10
15
20
Time (sec.)
25
30
35
Amplitude
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
Frequency (hz)
3.5
4.5
Velocity (inches/sec)
Displacement (inches)
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec )
3.5
4.5
60
40
20
0
Acceleration (g)
1.5
Amplitude
Acceleration (g)
EQ44FRIULI/ ATMZ270
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
Period (sec.)
3.5
4.5
1
0.5
0
Figure A50. 1976 Fruili, Italy Earthquake at Tolmezzo Station, Comp. 270
A33
A34
Appendix B
Examples
This appendix presents supplemental information and details on the design of each archetype building.
Section B.1 provides information about the following:
Section B.2 provides information regarding horizontal and vertical irregularities of the SFRS.
Section B.3 provides information regarding the AISC 360 frame stability calculation (B2 for the effective
length method) for the moment frame designs.
Section B.4 provides example calculations for the strength design of a few specific members and
components:
B.1
Table B1 through Table B3 provide the horizontal wind forces for the 700year wind for strength design
of the members and components of the MWFRS and wind forces for the 10year wind for verification of
serviceability criteria for each archetype building. In these tables, Fx represents wind forces in the EW
direction and Fy represents wind in the NS direction. Slight differences in applied wind forces are due to
stiffness variations between the ELF and RSA designs.
B1
Level
Elevation
(ft)
Roof
4
3
2
Base
60
46
32
18
0
Fy
22.46
21.63
20.36
21.25
85.71
Level
Elevation
(ft)
Roof
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Base
116
102
88
74
60
46
32
18
0
Level
Elevation
(ft)
Roof
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Base
228
214
200
186
172
158
144
130
116
102
88
74
60
46
32
18
0
B2
Seismic Forces
Effective Seismic Weights and Story Gravity Forces
Table B4 through Table B6 provide the effective seismic weights lumped at each story as well as the
lumped gravity force acting on each story for each building design. The gravity force is computed using the
two load combinations as discussed in Chapter 2.
Table B4. Effect Seismic Weights and Story Gravity Forces, MC4 (kips)
Level, x
Roof
4
3
2
Total
1
2
3
wx 1
1091
1339
1346
1364
5140
RSA
Pstory 2
1309
2925
4547
6192
Px 3
1091
2470
3854
5257

wx 1
1095
1345
1359
1377
5176
ELF
Pstory 2
1314
2936
4574
6235
Px 3
1095
2479
3877
5293

Table B5. Effect Seismic Weights and Story Gravity Forces, MC8 (kips)
Level, x
Roof
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Total
wx 1
1081
1324
1333
1338
1349
1353
1367
1390
10536
RSA
Pstory 2
1297
2893
4501
6114
7741
9373
11021
12697

Px 3
1081
2443
3815
5192
6580
7973
9378
10807

wx 1
1084
1328
1346
1355
1364
1368
1380
1402
10627
ELF
Pstory 2
1300
2901
4525
6158
7803
9452
11115
12806

B3
Px 3
1083
2450
3835
5229
6631
8038
9457
10898

Table B6. Effect Seismic Weights and Story Gravity Forces, MC16 (kips)
Level, x
Roof
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Total
wx 1
1083
1327
1332
1337
1349
1354
1359
1363
1370
1374
1379
1384
1395
1403
1414
1445
21667
RSA
Pstory 2
1296
2893
4496
6105
7728
9358
10993
12634
14282
15936
17595
19260
20939
22627
24328
26067

Px 3
1080
2444
3812
5184
6570
7960
9355
10754
12160
13570
14986
16406
17837
19276
20726
22207

wx 1
1083
1327
1342
1349
1357
1360
1366
1370
1379
1384
1389
1394
1402
1410
1425
1462
21800
ELF
Pstory 2
1297
2895
4509
6133
7766
9403
11046
12695
14355
16020
17691
19369
21056
22754
24469
26227

Px 3
1081
2444
3822
5208
6601
7997
9399
10806
12221
13641
15066
16496
17935
19381
20843
22341

Table B7 and Table B8 provide the horizontal seismic forces and story shears for each building design
for the seismic strength analysis and the drift analysis. The data are also graphically illustrated in Figure
B1 through Figure B3. In these tables, Fx represents the seismic forces acting in the EW direction only.
The equivalent story forces for the RSA design are backed out from the story shears computed via a modal
combination procedure. Although not theoretically correct, the forces provide a comparison basis for
evaluating variations in the vertical distribution.
Table B7. Seismic Strength Design Forces, EW MC4
RSA
Level, x
Roof
4
3
2
Fx
Vi
ELF
Vi
Fx
(kips)
(kips)
(kips)
(kips)
145
68
46
56
145
213
259
316
138
121
77
38
138
259
336
374
B4
VELF /
VRSA
1.05
0.82
0.77
0.84
Wind (700Year)
Fx
Vi
(kips)
(kips)
36
35
33
34
36
72
105
139
36
35
Floor
Roof
138 145
68
33
46
77
RSA
ELF
Wind (700Year)
2
34 38
36
138
145
RSA
ELF
Wind (700Year)
121
Floor
Roof
72
213
105
259
56
Base
40
80
120
160
336
139
Base
0
259
139
100
200
316
374
316
374
300
400
(kips)
(inch)
76
36
24
30
76
112
136
166
11.82
9.94
7.21
3.82
13
1415
0.011
0.016
0.020
0.018
76
14
i / hsx
(inch)
1.88
2.73
3.39
3.82
15
Floor
ELF
i
Vi
Roof
4
3
2
Roof
Fx
36
24
Vi
(kips)
(kips)
(inch)
89
70
39
15
89
159
198
213
12.13
9.85
6.85
3.51
Roof
89
RSA
ELF
Wind (10Year)
20
40
60
80
100
Wind (10Year)
Vi
Fx
i / hsx
0.014
0.018
0.020
0.016
15
29
42
55
159
136
55
198
166
55
50
(kips)
15
14
13
14
RSA
ELF
Wind (10Year)
112
42
(kips)
89
29
Base
Base
(inch)
2.28
3.00
3.33
3.51
76
30
15
70
39
Fx
Floor
Level, x
166
100
150
B5
213
213
200
250
Roof
0.0112
Roof
0.0136
11.8
RSA
ELF
RSA
ELF
0.0179
0.0198
Base
0.010
0.0163
0.0177
0.0163
0.0177
0.015
0.0202
0.020
9.9
Floor
0.0162
Floor
12.1
9.8
7.2 6.8
3.8 3.5
Base
0
10
12
14
Table B9 and Table B10 provide the tabulated data for verifying the allowable story drifts and the seismic
stability coefficient per ASCE 7 12.8.6 and ASCE 12.8.7 for each archetype building design. The
following formulas were used in these calculationssee ASCE 7, where is the story drift and is the
story drift ratio as defined in ASCE 7.
x
i x x 1
2i
C d xe
Ie
(B1)
Cd
xe ( x 1) e
Ie
(B2)
Px i I e Px xe ( x 1) e
Vi hsx Cd
Vi hsx
(B3)
2i
1 2i
(B4)
1i
Table B9. ASCE 7 Allowable Drift and Stability Verification, EW MC4 RSA
Level, x
ROOF
4
3
2
Vi Cd
Px
hsx
(kips)
(kips)
(inch)
(inch)
418
615
749
911
1091
2470
3854
5257
1.88
2.73
3.39
3.82
168
168
168
216
i / hsx
2i
max,i
0.011
0.016
0.020
0.018
0.029
0.065
0.104
0.102
0.028
0.061
0.094
0.093
0.39
0.54
0.63
0.70
0.232
0.168
0.143
0.129
B6
Table B10. ASCE 7 Allowable Drift and Stability Verification, EW MC4 ELF
Level, x
Vi Cd
Px
hsx
(kips)
(kips)
(inch)
(inch)
488
874
1088
1171
1095
2479
3877
5293
2.28
3.00
3.33
3.51
168
168
168
216
ROOF
4
3
2
B.1.2.2.2
i / hsx
2i
max,i
0.014
0.018
0.020
0.016
0.030
0.051
0.071
0.074
0.030
0.048
0.066
0.069
0.39
0.44
0.50
0.53
0.231
0.208
0.183
0.172
Table B11 and Figure B12 provide the horizontal seismic forces and story shears for each archetype
building design for the seismic strength analysis and the drift analysis. The data are also graphically
illustrated in Figure B4 through Figure B6. In these tables, Fx represents the seismic forces acting in the
EW direction only. The equivalent story forces for the RSA design are backed out from the story shears
computed via a modal combination procedure. Although not theoretically correct, the forces provide a
comparison basis for evaluating variations in the vertical distribution.
Table B11. Seismic Strength Design Forces, EW MC8
RSA
Level, x
Roof
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
(kips)
(kips)
(kips)
135
192
231
268
299
326
357
394
108
108
86
65
47
30
17
7
108
216
302
367
413
444
460
467
108
49
39
Floor
(kips)
135
57
39
37
31
26
31
37
46
31
26 30
17
31
57
46
4547
RSA
ELF
Wind (700Year)
43
(kips)
46
49
48
46
45
43
40
42
46
96
143
190
235
277
318
359
96
231
268
235
4
3
37 42
Base
302
190
40
RSA
ELF
Wind (700Year)
192 216
143
65
(kips)
108 135
86
46
Wind (700Year)
Fx
Vi
VELF /
VRSA
1.25
0.89
0.77
0.73
0.72
0.73
0.77
0.84
Roof
135
108
48
37
ELF
Vi
Fx
Floor
Roof
Vi
Fx
367
299
277
326
318
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
359
100
200
444
357
359
Base
0
413
300
460
394
467
394
467
400
B7
500
600
Vi
(kips)
(kips)
(inch)
66
28
19
18
15
13
15
18
66
93
112
131
146
159
174
192
21.48
19.64
17.26
14.52
11.59
8.69
5.70
2.84
Roof
i / hsx
(inch)
1.84
2.38
2.75
2.92
2.90
2.99
2.86
2.84
0.011
0.014
0.016
0.017
0.017
0.018
0.017
0.013
18
19
1819
Floor
ELF
i
66
28
15 17
4
7
(kips)
(inch)
71
68
51
36
24
14
7
2
71
139
190
226
250
264
271
273
22.95
20.70
17.87
15.06
12.06
9.00
5.89
2.93
Roof
71
18
(inch)
2.25
2.83
2.81
3.00
3.06
3.11
2.96
2.93
37
73
20
40
60
80
RSA
ELF
Wind (10Year)
226
146
105
250
159
121
136
50
100
264
174
136
Base
18
37
55
73
89
105
121
136
190
89
Base
(kips)
18
19
18
17
17
16
15
16
131
16 18
(kips)
139
112
15
0.013
0.017
0.017
0.018
0.018
0.019
0.018
0.014
93
55
RSA
ELF
Wind (10Year)
Wind (10Year)
Fx
Vi
i / hsx
6671
36
1314 16
(kips)
68
24
Vi
51
17
18
Fx
Floor
Level, x
Fx
150
271
192
192
200
B8
273
273
250
300
RSA
ELF
Roof
0.0134
0.0142
0.0168
0.0163
Floor
0.0167
0.0174
0.0173
0.0178
0.0170
2
Base
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.0132
0.0136
0.0132
0.0136
0.015
0.0179
0.0182
0.0185
21.5
RSA
ELF
19.6
17.3
Floor
0.0110
Roof
14.5
11.6
8.7
0.0176
5.7
2.8
22.9
20.7
17.9
15.1
12.1
9.0
5.9
2.9
Base
0.020
12
16
20
24
Table B13 and Table B14 provide the tabulated data for verifying the allowable story drifts and the seismic
stability coefficient per ASCE 7 12.8.6 and 12.8.7 for each archetype building design.
Table B13. ASCE 7 Allowable Drift and Stability Verification, EW MC8 RSA
Level, x
ROOF
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Vi Cd
Px
hsx
(kips)
(kips)
(inch)
(inch)
361
513
619
718
801
872
956
1055
1081
2443
3815
5192
6580
7973
9378
10807
1.84
2.38
2.75
2.92
2.90
2.99
2.86
2.84
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
216
i / hsx
2i
max,i
0.011
0.014
0.016
0.017
0.017
0.018
0.017
0.013
0.033
0.067
0.101
0.126
0.142
0.163
0.167
0.135
0.032
0.063
0.092
0.112
0.124
0.140
0.143
0.119
0.53
0.68
0.67
0.71
0.62
0.63
0.60
0.60
0.172
0.134
0.136
0.128
0.147
0.145
0.151
0.152
Table B14. ASCE 7 Allowable Drift and Stability Verification, EW MC8 ELF
Level, x
ROOF
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Vi Cd
Px
hsx
(kips)
(kips)
(inch)
(inch)
392
763
1043
1243
1375
1453
1491
1503
1083
2450
3835
5229
6631
8038
9457
10898
2.25
2.83
2.81
3.00
3.06
3.11
2.96
2.93
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
216
i / hsx
2i
max,i
0.013
0.017
0.017
0.018
0.018
0.019
0.018
0.014
0.037
0.054
0.062
0.075
0.088
0.102
0.112
0.098
0.036
0.051
0.058
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.101
0.089
0.37
0.51
0.43
0.48
0.46
0.48
0.47
0.45
0.246
0.180
0.210
0.190
0.199
0.190
0.192
0.200
B9
B.1.2.2.3
Table B15 and Table B16 provide the horizontal seismic forces and story shears for each archetype
building design for the seismic strength analysis and the drift analysis. The data are also graphically
illustrated in Figure B7 through Figure B9. In these tables, Fx represents the seismic forces acting in the
EW direction only. The equivalent story forces for the RSA design are backed out from the story shears
computed via a modal combination procedure. Although not theoretically correct, the forces provide a
comparison basis for evaluating variations in the vertical distribution.
Table B15. Summary of Seismic Strength Design Forces, EW MC16
RSA
Level, x
Roof
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Base
Vi
(kips)
(kips)
(kips)
(kips)
196
95
54
46
45
41
33
31
33
33
29
26
29
38
44
37
196
292
346
391
436
477
510
541
573
607
636
662
691
729
773
810
133
144
127
111
95
80
67
55
44
34
26
18
12
7
3
1
133
278
405
515
611
691
758
813
857
891
917
935
947
954
957
958
57
133
62
95
46
61
45
60
58
31
44
53
26
RSA
ELF
Wind (700Year)
51
29
50
38
3
1
67
54
2629
80
56
33
34
12
111
95
5557
33
18
127
59
33
196
144
54 61
41
ELF
Vi
VELF / VRSA
Fx
Floor
Floor
Roof
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Fx
48
44
45
37
47
50
100
150
200
Wind (700Year)
Fx
Vi
(kips)
(kips)
57
62
61
61
60
59
58
57
56
54
53
51
50
48
45
47
57
119
180
241
301
360
417
474
530
584
637
689
738
786
831
878
1.47
1.05
0.85
0.76
0.71
0.69
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.68
0.69
0.71
0.73
0.76
0.81
0.85
Roof
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Base
57
133
196
119
RSA
ELF
Wind (700Year)
278
292
180
346
241
405
391
301
515
436
360
611
477
417
691
510
474
758
541
813
530 573
857
584607
891
636
637
729
947
786
773
200
400
600
B10
935
691 738
917
662689
954
831
957
810
878
810
878
800
958
958
1000
Floor
Roof
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Roof
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
Base
Vi
(kips)
(kips)
(inch)
71
35
20
17
16
15
12
11
12
12
11
9
11
14
16
13
71
106
126
142
159
174
186
197
209
221
232
241
252
266
282
295
29.39
28.11
26.42
24.42
22.41
20.51
18.52
16.43
14.33
12.29
10.22
8.15
6.21
4.47
2.80
1.31
(inch)
1.28
1.69
2.00
2.02
1.89
1.99
2.09
2.10
2.04
2.07
2.07
1.94
1.75
1.67
1.49
1.31
23
20
16
22
15
22
11
17
(inch)
52
109
158
202
239
270
296
318
335
348
358
365
370
373
374
375
38.12
36.36
34.20
31.89
29.39
26.77
23.96
21.05
18.21
15.57
12.97
10.40
7.89
5.52
3.32
1.49
71
56
50
37
31
26
RSA
ELF
Wind (10Year)
20
19
11
19
14
1
0
(kips)
52
56
50
43
37
31
26
21
17
13
10
7
5
3
1
0
20
10
11
(kips)
21
1213
18
1617
13
18
20
40
60
Vi
21
21
12
Fx
43
22
12
35
23
23
0.008
0.010
0.012
0.012
0.011
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.010
0.010
0.009
0.006
52
23
17
i / hsx
Floor
Level, x
ELF
Fx
80
Roof
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
2
Base
23
52
Wind (10Year)
Fx
Vi
i / hsx
(inch)
1.76
2.16
2.30
2.51
2.62
2.81
2.92
2.84
2.64
2.60
2.57
2.51
2.37
2.20
1.83
1.49
0.010
0.013
0.014
0.015
0.016
0.017
0.017
0.017
0.016
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.014
0.013
0.011
0.007
(kips)
(kips)
23
23
23
23
22
22
22
21
21
20
20
19
19
18
17
18
23
46
69
91
114
136
157
178
199
219
239
258
277
295
311
329
71
46
RSA
ELF
Wind (10Year)
106
109
69
126
91
158
142
114
202
159
136
239
174
157
270
186
296
178 197
318
199209
335
219
221
348
239
232
358
241 258
50
100
150
200
250
373
311
282
B11
370
295
266
365
277
252
374
295
329
375
295
329
375
300
350
400
0.0105
0.0100
0.0128
0.0119
0.0137
0.0120
0.0149
0.0113
0.0156
0.0119
0.0167
0.0125
0.0174
0.0125
RSA
ELF
0.0169
0.0122
0.0157
0.0123
0.0155
0.0123
0.0153
0.0116
0.0104
0.0131
0.0089
0.0069
0.0061
0.0069
0.005
0.0150
0.0141
0.0099
0.0061
Floor
0.0076
Floor
Roof
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Base
0.000
0.0109
0.010
0.015
0.020
Roof
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Base
29.4
38.1
28.1
36.4
26.4
34.2
24.4
31.9
22.4
29.4
20.5
26.8
18.5
24.0
16.4
14.3
18.2
12.3
15.6
10.2
8.2
6.2
4.5
2.8
1.3
21.0
13.0
10.4
RSA
ELF
7.9
5.5
3.3
1.5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Table B17 and Table B18 provide the tabulated data for verifying the allowable story drifts and the seismic
stability coefficient per ASCE 7 12.8.6 and ASCE 7 12.8.7 for each building design.
Table B17. ASCE 7 Allowable Drift and Stability Verification, EW MC16 RSA
Level, x
ROOF
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Vi Cd
Px
hsx
(kips)
(kips)
(inch)
(inch)
392
583
692
783
874
956
1022
1084
1149
1216
1275
1327
1386
1462
1549
1622
1080
2444
3812
5184
6570
7960
9355
10754
12160
13570
14986
16406
17837
19276
20726
22207
1.28
1.69
2.00
2.02
1.89
1.99
2.09
2.10
2.04
2.07
2.07
1.94
1.75
1.67
1.49
1.31
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
216
i / hsx
2i
max,i
0.008
0.010
0.012
0.012
0.011
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.010
0.010
0.009
0.006
0.021
0.042
0.066
0.079
0.085
0.099
0.114
0.124
0.129
0.138
0.145
0.143
0.134
0.131
0.118
0.083
0.021
0.040
0.062
0.074
0.078
0.090
0.102
0.110
0.114
0.121
0.126
0.125
0.118
0.116
0.106
0.077
0.52
0.68
0.78
0.81
0.65
0.67
0.68
0.68
0.67
0.67
0.68
0.68
0.63
0.61
0.60
0.54
0.173
0.133
0.116
0.112
0.139
0.137
0.134
0.134
0.135
0.135
0.133
0.134
0.143
0.149
0.150
0.169
B12
Table B18. ASCE 7 Allowable Drift and Stability Verification, EW MC16 RSA
Level, x
ROOF
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Vi Cd
Px
hsx
(kips)
(kips)
(inch)
(inch)
287
597
870
1108
1313
1486
1630
1748
1843
1916
1971
2010
2036
2051
2058
2061
1081
2444
3822
5208
6601
7997
9399
10806
12221
13641
15066
16496
17935
19381
20843
22341
1.76
2.16
2.30
2.51
2.62
2.81
2.92
2.84
2.64
2.60
2.57
2.51
2.37
2.20
1.83
1.49
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
216
i / hsx
2i
max,i
0.010
0.013
0.014
0.015
0.016
0.017
0.017
0.017
0.016
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.014
0.013
0.011
0.007
0.040
0.053
0.060
0.070
0.078
0.090
0.100
0.104
0.104
0.110
0.117
0.123
0.124
0.124
0.110
0.075
0.038
0.050
0.057
0.065
0.073
0.082
0.091
0.095
0.094
0.099
0.105
0.109
0.110
0.110
0.099
0.069
0.47
0.61
0.58
0.64
0.69
0.74
0.78
0.78
0.71
0.69
0.71
0.72
0.75
0.73
0.71
0.59
0.194
0.150
0.157
0.142
0.131
0.123
0.117
0.116
0.128
0.131
0.127
0.126
0.121
0.125
0.128
0.154
Table B19 and Table B20 provide the horizontal seismic forces and story shears for each archetype
building design for the seismic strength analysis and the drift analysis. The data are also graphically
illustrated in Figure B10 through Figure B12. In these tables, Fy represents the seismic forces acting in
the NS direction only. Lastly, the equivalent story forces for the RSA design are backed out from the story
shears computed via a modal combination procedure. Although not theoretically correct, the forces provide
a comparison basis for evaluating variations in the vertical distribution.
Table B19. Summary of Seismic Strength Design Forces, NS MC4
RSA
Level, x
Roof
4
3
2
Fy
Vi
Fy
ELF
Vi
(kips)
(kips)
(kips)
(kips)
261
219
153
91
261
480
633
723
293
272
188
104
293
565
753
857
B13
VELF /
VRSA
0.89
0.85
0.84
0.84
Wind (700Year)
Fy
Vi
(kips)
(kips)
36
35
33
34
36
72
105
139
Roof
52
50
219
48
153
50
91
Roof
293
188
Base
0
40
80
120
160
200
240
280
261 293
RSA
ELF
Wind (700Year)
103
480
633
753
200
Base
320
565
150
RSA
ELF
Wind (700Year)
104
52
272
Floor
Floor
261
723
200
100
857
723
200
300
400
500
600
700
857
800
900
Roof
22
22
20
21
(kips)
(kips)
(inch)
226
190
132
78
226
416
549
627
4.88
3.85
2.63
1.35
(inch)
1.02
1.22
1.28
1.35
Fy
(kips)
(kips)
(inch)
0.006
0.007
0.008
0.006
270
249
170
93
270
519
689
782
5.41
4.21
2.70
1.39
226
190
132
78
Vi
Roof
270
RSA
ELF
Wind (10Year)
Base
40
80
120
160
200
240
280
(inch)
1.20
1.51
1.31
1.39
226
i / hsx
Wind (10Year)
Vi
Fy
0.007
0.009
0.008
0.006
(kips)
(kips)
15
14
13
14
15
29
42
55
270
RSA
ELF
Wind (10Year)
44
416
519
64
549
627
86
100
300
400
B14
782
627
200
500
689
86
Base
22
249
170
93
i / hsx
Floor
Floor
Roof
4
3
2
ELF
Vi
Fy
Level, x
600
782
700
800
0.0071
0.0061
Floor
RSA
ELF
4
0.0073
0.0090
0.0078 0.0076
Roof
0.0065 0.0063
Base
0.000
3.9
2.6
0.0065 0.0063
0.005
4.9
0.010
0.015
5.4
RSA
ELF
Floor
Roof
1.4
4.2
2.7
1.4
Base
0.020
Table B21 and Table B22 provide the tabulated data for verifying the allowable story drifts and the seismic
stability coefficient per ASCE 7 12.8.6 and ASCE 12.8.7 for each archetype building design.
Table B21. ASCE 7 Allowable Drift and Stability Verification, NS MC4 RSA
Level, x
ROOF
4
3
2
Vi Cd
Px
hsx
(kips)
(kips)
(inch)
(inch)
1130
2082
2743
3135
1091
2470
3854
5257
1.02
1.22
1.28
1.35
168
168
168
216
i / hsx
2i
max,i
0.006
0.007
0.008
0.006
0.006
0.009
0.011
0.010
0.006
0.009
0.011
0.010
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
Table B22. ASCE 7 Allowable Drift and Stability Verification, NS MC4 ELF
Level, x
ROOF
4
3
2
B.1.2.3.2
Vi Cd
Px
hsx
(kips)
(kips)
(inch)
(inch)
1351
2597
3446
3909
1095
2479
3877
5293
1.20
1.51
1.31
1.39
168
168
168
216
i / hsx
2i
max,i
0.007
0.009
0.008
0.006
0.006
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.006
0.008
0.009
0.009
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
Table B23 and Table B24 provide the horizontal seismic forces and story shears for each archetype
building design for the seismic strength analysis and the drift analysis. The data are also graphically
illustrated in Figure B13 through Figure B15. In these tables, Fy represents the seismic forces acting in
the NS direction only. Lastly, the equivalent story forces for the RSA design are backed out from the story
B15
shears computed via a modal combination procedure. Although not theoretically correct, the forces provide
a comparison basis for evaluating variations in the vertical distribution.
Table B23. Summary of Seismic Strength Design Forces, NS MC8
RSA
Roof
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
63
63
Floor
7
6
59
60
58
55
5255
27
55
(kips)
(kips)
(kips)
(kips)
239
174
94
59
70
93
100
76
239
414
508
566
636
729
829
904
216
225
190
154
119
86
55
27
216
441
631
785
904
990
1045
1073
216
174
62
ELF
Vi
Fy
94
119
RSA
ELF
Wind (700Year)
86 93
(kips)
46
49
48
46
45
43
40
42
46
96
143
190
235
277
318
359
216239
508
248
306
40
80
120
160
200
240
904
729
990
829
468
Base
636
413
Base
785
361
76
631
566
100
RSA
ELF
Wind (700Year)
414441
188
154
(kips)
127
190
70
63
225
Wind (700Year)
Fy
Vi
VELF /
VRSA
1.11
0.94
0.80
0.72
0.70
0.74
0.79
0.84
Roof
239
Floor
Roof
Vi
Fy
Level, x
904
468
200
400
1045
1073
904
600
800
1073
1000
Fy
Vi
(kips)
(kips)
(inch)
168
122
66
41
49
65
70
53
168
290
356
397
446
511
581
633
10.93
9.42
7.79
6.12
4.58
3.20
2.11
1.06
ELF
i
(inch)
1.51
1.62
1.68
1.54
1.37
1.10
1.04
1.06
i / hsx
Fy
(kips)
(kips)
(inch)
0.009
0.010
0.010
0.009
0.008
0.007
0.006
0.005
161
163
133
104
77
52
31
13
161
324
458
562
638
690
721
735
14.59
12.56
10.33
8.16
6.17
4.17
2.60
1.22
B16
Vi
(inch)
2.03
2.23
2.17
1.99
2.00
1.57
1.39
1.22
i / hsx
0.012
0.013
0.013
0.012
0.012
0.009
0.008
0.006
Wind (10Year)
Fy
Vi
(kips)
(kips)
18
19
18
17
17
16
15
16
18
37
55
73
89
105
121
136
1200
27
27
26
25
24
23
22
13
Roof
161 168
122
66
77
52
RSA
ELF
Wind (10Year)
65
31
23
80
356
105
446
153
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
511
690
581
199
Base
0
638
175
Base
562
130
53
458
397
70
RSA
ELF
Wind (10Year)
290 324
104
49
161
168
54
133
41
27
163
Floor
Floor
Roof
633
199
100
735
633
200
300
721
400
500
600
735
700
800
RSA
ELF
0.0097
Floor
0.0118
0.0082
0.0119
0.0065
Base
0.000
0.0129
0.0092
0.0133
0.0100
0.0062
0.0049
0.0056
0.0049
0.0056
0.005
Roof
0.0121
0.0093
10.9
RSA
ELF
7.8
0.0083
4.6
3.2
2.1
0.010
0.015
0.020
1.1
12.6
10.3
6.1
14.6
9.4
Floor
0.0090
Roof
8.2
6.2
4.2
2.6
1.2
Base
0
12
16
Table B25 and Table B26 provide the tabulated data for verifying the allowable story drifts and the seismic
stability coefficient per ASCE 7 12.8.6 and ASCE 12.8.7 for each archetype building design.
B17
Table B25. ASCE 7 Allowable Drift and Stability Verification, NS MC8 RSA
Level, x
ROOF
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Vi Cd
Px
hsx
(kips)
(kips)
(inch)
(inch)
838
1449
1778
1985
2229
2555
2903
3167
1081
2443
3815
5192
6580
7973
9378
10807
1.51
1.62
1.68
1.54
1.37
1.10
1.04
1.06
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
216
i / hsx
2i
max,i
0.009
0.010
0.010
0.009
0.008
0.007
0.006
0.005
0.012
0.016
0.021
0.024
0.024
0.020
0.020
0.017
0.011
0.016
0.021
0.023
0.024
0.020
0.020
0.017
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
Table B26. ASCE 7 Allowable Drift and Stability Verification, NS MC8 ELF
Level, x
ROOF
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
B.1.2.3.3
Vi Cd
Px
hsx
(kips)
(kips)
(inch)
(inch)
805
1622
2288
2808
3192
3452
3606
3673
1083
2450
3835
5229
6631
8038
9457
10898
2.03
2.23
2.17
1.99
2.00
1.57
1.39
1.22
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
216
i / hsx
2i
max,i
0.012
0.013
0.013
0.012
0.012
0.009
0.008
0.006
0.016
0.020
0.022
0.022
0.025
0.022
0.022
0.017
0.016
0.020
0.021
0.022
0.024
0.021
0.021
0.016
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
Table B27 and Table B28 provide the horizontal seismic forces and story shears for each archetype
building design for the seismic strength analysis and the drift analysis. The data are also graphically
illustrated in Figure B16 through Figure B18. In these tables, Fy represents the seismic forces acting in
the NS direction only. Lastly, the equivalent story forces for the RSA design are backed out from the story
shears computed via a modal combination procedure. Although not theoretically correct, the forces provide
a comparison basis for evaluating variations in the vertical distribution.
Table B27. Summary of Seismic Strength Design Forces, NS MC16
RSA
Level, x
Roof
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Fy
Vi
Fy
ELF
Vi
VELF / VRSA
(kips)
(kips)
(kips)
(kips)
190
172
115
73
45
33
31
33
41
50
58
66
68
62
50
33
190
362
477
550
595
628
658
692
733
783
841
907
975
1037
1087
1120
159
177
161
144
128
112
98
83
70
57
46
35
25
17
10
4
159
336
497
641
769
881
979
1062
1132
1190
1235
1270
1296
1312
1322
1326
B18
1.19
1.08
0.96
0.86
0.77
0.71
0.67
0.65
0.65
0.66
0.68
0.71
0.75
0.79
0.82
0.84
Wind (700Year)
Fy
Vi
(kips)
(kips)
57
62
61
61
60
59
58
57
56
54
53
51
50
48
45
47
57
119
180
241
301
360
417
474
530
584
637
689
738
786
831
878
78
159
79
78
115
161
7377
45
112
74
33
98
73
41
83
70
71
50 57
46
70
58
68
35
RSA
ELF
Wind (700Year)
66
66
25
6468
17
62
62
10
128
75
31
144
76
33
50
33
190
172177
Floor
Floor
Roof
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
Base
59
62
40
80
120
160
200
Roof
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
2
Base
78
159190
157
RSA
ELF
Wind (700Year)
336
362
235
477
497
312
550
388
641
595
463
769
628
536
881
658
609
979
692
1062
680 733
1132
750783
1190
818
841
1235
884
907
1270
949
975
1296
1010
1037
1312
1069
1087
200
400
600
800
1000
1322
1120
1132
1326
1120
1132
1326
1200
Fy
Vi
(kips)
(kips)
(inch)
160
145
97
62
38
28
26
28
35
42
49
55
57
53
42
28
160
305
402
464
502
530
555
584
619
661
710
766
823
875
917
945
16.00
15.00
13.84
12.63
11.41
10.29
9.21
8.13
7.08
6.03
5.02
4.09
3.20
2.29
1.45
0.76
ELF
i
(inch)
1.01
1.15
1.21
1.23
1.12
1.08
1.08
1.05
1.05
1.01
0.93
0.89
0.91
0.84
0.69
0.76
i / hsx
Fy
(kips)
(kips)
(inch)
0.006
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.004
142
155
139
122
107
92
78
65
54
43
33
24
17
10
6
2
142
296
435
557
664
757
835
900
954
997
1030
1054
1071
1082
1087
1089
24.43
22.90
21.12
19.20
17.21
15.32
13.50
11.76
10.11
8.48
6.95
5.47
4.11
2.82
1.71
0.84
B19
Vi
(inch)
1.53
1.78
1.91
1.99
1.89
1.82
1.74
1.65
1.63
1.53
1.48
1.36
1.29
1.11
0.86
0.84
i / hsx
0.009
0.011
0.011
0.012
0.011
0.011
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.009
0.009
0.008
0.008
0.007
0.005
0.004
Wind (10Year)
Vi
Fy
(kips)
(kips)
23
23
23
23
22
22
22
21
21
20
20
19
19
18
17
18
23
46
69
91
114
136
157
178
199
219
239
258
277
295
311
329
1400
33
142
33
32
97
32
122
107
28 31
92
26 31
78
2830
65
30 35
54
29
42
43
28 33
55
27
57
26
53
24
RSA
ELF
Wind (10Year)
49
24 28
10
155
139
62
32 38
17
160
145
Floor
Floor
Roof
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Base
42
2628
40
80
120
160
Roof
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Base
33
142
160
66
RSA
ELF
Wind (10Year)
296
305
98
402435
130
464
162
557
502
193
664
530
223
757
555
254
835
584
283
900
619
312
954
661
340
997
710
1030
368
766
395
1054
823
420
1071
875
445
200
1087
471
945
1089
471
945
1089
400
1082
917
600
800
1000
1200
0.0060
0.0091
0.0069
0.0106
0.0072
0.0114
0.0073
0.0119
0.0067
0.0112
0.0064
0.0108
0.0064
0.0104
0.0062
0.0098
0.0063
0.0097
0.0060
0.0091
0.0055
0.0088
0.0053
0.0081
0.0054
0.0077
0.0050
0.0041
0.0066
RSA
ELF
0.0051
0.0035
0.0039
0.0035
0.0039
Floor
Roof
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Base
0.000
Floor
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
Roof
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Base
16.0
24.4
15.0
22.9
13.8
21.1
12.6
19.2
11.4
17.2
10.3
15.3
9.2
13.5
8.1
11.8
7.1
10.1
6.0
5.0
4.1
2.3
0.8
6.9
5.5
3.2
1.5
8.5
RSA
ELF
4.1
2.8
1.7
0.8
12
16
20
B20
24
Table B29 and Table B30 provide the tabulated data for verifying the allowable story drifts and the seismic
stability coefficient per ASCE 7 12.8.6 and 12.8.7 for each archetype building design.
Table B29. ASCE 7 Allowable Drift and Stability Verification, NS MC16 RSA
Level, x
ROOF
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Vi Cd
Px
hsx
(kips)
(kips)
(inch)
(inch)
800
1524
2010
2320
2508
2646
2775
2916
3090
3302
3548
3824
4109
4372
4581
4721
1080
2444
3812
5184
6570
7960
9355
10754
12160
13570
14986
16406
17837
19276
20726
22207
1.01
1.15
1.21
1.23
1.12
1.08
1.08
1.05
1.05
1.01
0.93
0.89
0.91
0.84
0.69
0.76
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
216
i / hsx
2i
max,i
0.006
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.008
0.011
0.014
0.016
0.017
0.019
0.022
0.023
0.025
0.025
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.022
0.019
0.017
0.008
0.011
0.013
0.016
0.017
0.019
0.021
0.022
0.024
0.024
0.023
0.022
0.023
0.021
0.018
0.016
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
Table B30. ASCE 7 Allowable Drift and Stability Verification, NS MC16 ELF
Level, x
ROOF
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
B.2
Vi Cd
Px
hsx
(kips)
(kips)
(inch)
(inch)
706
1479
2170
2782
3316
3775
4167
4493
4762
4975
5140
5261
5345
5398
5425
5435
1080
2444
3821
5206
6598
7994
9396
10802
12217
13636
15061
16491
17929
19375
20836
22334
1.52
1.78
1.91
1.99
1.88
1.82
1.74
1.65
1.63
1.53
1.47
1.36
1.29
1.11
0.86
0.84
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
216
i / hsx
2i
max,i
0.009
0.011
0.011
0.012
0.011
0.011
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.009
0.009
0.008
0.008
0.007
0.005
0.004
0.014
0.017
0.020
0.022
0.022
0.023
0.023
0.024
0.025
0.025
0.026
0.025
0.026
0.024
0.020
0.016
0.014
0.017
0.020
0.022
0.022
0.022
0.023
0.023
0.024
0.024
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.023
0.019
0.016
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
Table B31 through Table B34 provide the results for the horizontal (type 1) and vertical (type 1 and 5)
irregularity verifications.
B21
Floor (x)
Roof MC16
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9 (Roof MC8)
8
7
6
5 (Roof MC4)
4
3
2
max / avg a
MC4
MC8
ELF
RSA
ELF
RSA
1.016
1.011
1.013
1.009
1.012
1.008
1.011
1.007
1.007
1.006
1.009
1.006
1.006
1.004
1.008
1.005
1.005
1.004
1.008
1.006
1.004
1.003
1.006
1.004
MC16
ELF
RSA
1.015
1.012
1.011
1.009
1.012
1.008
1.011
1.007
1.010
1.008
1.010
1.007
1.009
1.007
1.009
1.007
1.008
1.007
1.009
1.007
1.008
1.006
1.008
1.007
1.007
1.006
1.007
1.007
1.011
1.009
1.004
1.005
Floor (x)
Roof MC16
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9 (Roof MC8)
8
7
6
5 (Roof MC4)
4
3
2
ELF
1.32
1.11
0.82
MC16
ELF
1.22
1.07
1.09
1.04
1.07
1.04
0.97
0.93
0.99
0.99
0.98
0.94
0.93
0.83
0.63
RSA
1.27
1.13
0.97
0.89
1.02
1.02
0.98
0.95
1.00
0.98
0.93
0.88
0.94
0.90
0.67
Vy,i
h
2 M pr , j
j1
(B5)
hsx hsx1
2
B22
(B6)
Table B33. Vertical Irregularity Type 5 (a and b) Verification, ELF (kip, feet)
Floor (x)
Roof MC16
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9 (Roof MC8)
8
7
6
5 (Roof MC4)
4
3
2
a.
b.
c.
hc
7
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14 / 7
14
14
14
14 / 7
14
14
16
Mpr a
491.1
679.7
754.6
754.6
MC4
Vy,x b
Vy,x+1 / Vy,x
421.0
291.3
0.69
323.4
1.11
283.0
0.88
Mpr a
491.1
491.1
951.8
951.8
1161.6
1161.6
1161.6
1161.6
MC8
Vy,x b
Vy,x+1 / Vy,x
421.0
210.5
0.50
407.9
1.94
407.9
1.00
497.8
1.22
497.8
1.00
497.8
1.00
435.6
0.88
Mpr a
491.1
491.1
951.8
951.8
1242.1
1242.1
1242.1
1242.1
1662.3
1662.3
1662.3
1662.3
1662.3
1662.3
1662.3
1662.3
MC16
Vy,x b
Vy,x+1 / Vy,x
421.0
210.5
0.50
407.9
1.94
407.9
1.00
532.3
1.31
532.3
1.00
532.3
1.00
532.3
1.00
712.4
1.34
712.4
1.00
712.4
1.00
712.4
1.00
712.4
1.00
712.4
1.00
712.4
1.00
623.3
0.88
Mpr is for a single beam plastic hinge at the center of the RBS.
Vyx is computed neglecting the plastic moment strength of the adjacent columns.
h is taken as the distance from midheight of a story to midheight of the story above ( hsx).
Table B34. Vertical Irregularity Type 5 (a and b) Verification, RSA (kip, feet)
Floor (x)
Roof MC16
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9 (Roof MC8)
8
7
6
5 (Roof MC4)
4
3
2
a.
b.
c.
hc
7
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14 / 7
14
14
14
14 / 7
14
14
16
Mpr a
491.1
491.1
491.1
491.1
MC4
Vy,x b
Vy,x+1 / Vy,x
421.0
210.5
0.50
210.5
1.00
184.2
0.88
Mpr a
358.7
358.7
491.1
491.1
679.7
679.7
754.6
754.6
MC8
Vy,x b
Vy,x+1 / Vy,x
307.5
153.7
0.50
210.5
1.37
210.5
1.00
291.3
1.38
291.3
1.00
323.4
1.11
283.0
0.88
Mpr a
491.1
491.1
491.1
491.1
951.8
951.8
951.8
951.8
1242.1
1242.1
1242.1
1242.1
1662.3
1662.3
1662.3
1662.3
MC16
Vy,x b
Vy,x+1 / Vy,x
421.0
210.5
0.50
210.5
1.00
210.5
1.00
407.9
1.94
407.9
1.00
407.9
1.00
407.9
1.00
532.3
1.31
532.3
1.00
532.3
1.00
532.3
1.00
712.4
1.34
712.4
1.00
712.4
1.00
623.3
0.88
Mpr is for a single beam plastic hinge at the center of the RBS.
Vyx is computed neglecting the plastic moment strength of the adjacent columns.
h is taken as the distance from midheight of a story to midheight of the story above ( hsx).
B23
Floor (x)
Roof MC16
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9 (Roof MC8)
8
7
6
5 (Roof MC4)
4
3
2
MC16
ELF
RSA
1.097
1.100
1.073
1.071
1.072
1.086
1.079
1.075
1.077
1.083
1.073
1.073
1.089
1.089
1.063
1.073
1.098
1.094
1.060
1.070
1.102
1.097
1.057
1.060
1.103
1.105
1.059
1.056
1.127
1.129
1.077
1.080
Floor (x)
Roof MC16
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9 (Roof MC8)
8
7
6
5 (Roof MC4)
4
3
2
ELF
1.26
0.87
0.83
1.10
1.11
0.97
1.03
0.92
0.91
1.00
0.88
1.14
0.79
0.77
1.02
0.88
0.93
0.63
0.68
0.61
MC16
ELF
1.17
1.07
1.04
0.95
0.97
0.96
0.95
0.99
0.94
0.96
0.92
0.95
0.86
0.78
0.76
RSA
1.20
1.08
1.02
0.91
0.94
1.00
0.94
0.99
0.93
0.91
0.93
1.01
0.91
0.82
0.85
b
2
b
2 hsx 2
2
B24
(B7)
Table B37. Vertical Irregularity Type 5 (a and b) Verification, ELF (kip, feet)
MC4
a
Floor (x)
hsx
Pbr,C
Roof MC16
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9 (Roof MC8)
8
7
6
5 (Roof MC4)
4
3
2
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
18
78.3
131.7
252.8
239.0
Pbr,T
MC8
Vy,x
249.2
255.9
403.2
484.4
190.4
225.3
381.3
351.3
Vy,x+1 /
Vy,x
1.18
1.69
0.92
Pbr,C
Pbr,T
MC16
Vy,x
131.7
131.7
252.8
252.8
252.8
252.8
343.3
296.9
255.9
255.9
403.2
403.2
403.2
403.2
480.2
480.2
225.3
225.3
381.3
381.3
381.3
381.3
478.7
377.4
Vy,x+1 /
Vy,x
1.00
1.69
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.26
0.79
Pbr,T b
Vy,x
99.4
99.4
132.7
132.7
207.5
207.5
240.2
240.2
297.9
297.9
297.9
297.9
297.9
297.9
469.2
419.4
255.9
255.9
284.8
284.8
403.2
403.2
484.4
484.4
480.2
480.2
480.2
480.2
480.2
480.2
679.0
679.0
259.7
259.7
305.3
305.3
446.5
446.5
529.7
529.7
568.9
568.9
568.9
568.9
568.9
568.9
839.4
703.1
Pbr,C
Vy,x+1 /
Vy,x
1.00
1.18
1.00
1.46
1.00
1.19
1.00
1.07
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.48
0.84
Table B38. Vertical Irregularity Type 5 (a and b) Verification, RSA (kip, feet)
MC4
a
Floor (x)
hsx
Pbr,C
Roof MC16
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9 (Roof MC8)
8
7
6
5 (Roof MC4)
4
3
2
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
18
67.6
131.7
166.5
206.6
Pbr,T
197.9
255.9
284.8
403.2
MC8
Vy,x
154.3
225.3
262.3
296.1
Vy,x+1 /
Vy,x
1.46
1.16
1.13
Pbr,C
Pbr,T
MC16
Vy,x
131.7
131.7
166.5
166.5
252.8
252.8
343.3
296.9
255.9
255.9
284.8
284.8
403.2
403.2
480.2
480.2
225.3
225.3
262.3
262.3
381.3
381.3
478.7
377.4
Vy,x+1 /
Vy,x
1.00
1.16
1.00
1.45
1.00
1.26
0.79
Pbr,T b
Vy,x
99.4
99.4
132.7
132.7
207.5
207.5
207.5
207.5
207.5
207.5
240.2
240.2
297.9
297.9
469.2
419.4
255.9
255.9
284.8
284.8
403.2
403.2
403.2
403.2
403.2
403.2
484.4
484.4
480.2
480.2
679.0
679.0
259.7
259.7
305.3
305.3
446.5
446.5
446.5
446.5
446.5
446.5
529.7
529.7
568.9
568.9
839.4
703.1
Pbr,C
Vy,x+1 /
Vy,x
1.00
1.18
1.00
1.46
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.19
1.00
1.07
1.00
1.48
0.84
B.3
Table B39 through Table B44 provide the results from AISC 360, appendix 7 Effective Length Method
verifications.
B25
Table B39. AISC 360 Frame Stability (Effective Length Method), 4Story SMF ELF (kip, inch)
Pstory a
1314
2936
4574
6235
H b
2.24
2.92
3.21
3.38
H
499.9
897.8
1120.0
1208.0
L
168
168
168
216
Rm
0.954
0.954
0.954
0.954
Pe story
35716
49223
55854
73615
B2
1.04
1.06
1.09
1.09
Table B40. AISC 360 Frame Stability (Effective Length Method), 4Story SMF RSA (kip, inch)
Pstory a
1309
2925
4547
6192
H b
2.51
3.50
3.97
4.13
H
435.5
765.8
938.0
999.6
L
168
168
168
216
Rm
0.954
0.954
0.954
0.954
Pe story
27764
35055
37806
49870
B2
1.05
1.09
1.14
1.14
Table B41. AISC 360 Frame Stability (Effective Length Method), 8Story SMF ELF (kip, inch)
Pstory a
1300
2901
4525
6158
7803
9452
11115
12806
H b
2.15
2.68
2.64
2.79
2.81
2.83
2.68
2.66
H
392.5
764.5
1045.2
1244.9
1377.1
1455.0
1493.0
1505.3
L
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
216
Rm
0.954
0.954
0.954
0.954
0.954
0.954
0.954
0.954
Pe story
29312
45678
63361
71414
78453
82282
89151
116595
B2
1.05
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.11
1.13
1.14
1.12
Table B42. AISC 360 Frame Stability (Effective Length Method), 8Story SMF RSA (kip, inch)
Pstory a
1297
2893
4501
6114
7741
9373
11021
12697
H b
5.76
7.62
8.56
8.74
8.11
7.72
6.83
6.44
H
665.9
1297.1
1770.7
2107.1
2330.3
2462.1
2526.7
2547.5
L
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
216
Rm
0.954
0.954
0.954
0.954
0.954
0.954
0.954
0.954
Pe story
18506
27284
33134
38612
46054
51065
59299
81474
B26
B2
1.08
1.12
1.16
1.19
1.20
1.22
1.23
1.18
Table B43. AISC 360 Frame Stability (Effective Length Method), 16Story SMF ELF (kip, inch)
H b
1.62
1.97
2.09
2.26
2.34
2.49
2.57
2.50
2.31
2.27
2.24
2.18
2.05
1.91
1.60
1.32
Pstory a
1297
2895
4509
6133
7766
9403
11046
12695
14355
16020
17691
19369
21056
22754
24469
26227
H
278.1
578.3
843.4
1073.9
1272.1
1439.8
1579.7
1694.0
1785.7
1856.8
1909.9
1947.6
1972.5
1987.2
1994.5
1996.8
L
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
216
Rm
0.954
0.954
0.954
0.954
0.954
0.954
0.954
0.954
0.954
0.954
0.954
0.954
0.954
0.954
0.954
0.954
Pe story
27566
47016
64592
76131
86953
92517
98355
108744
123781
131214
136851
143441
154360
167096
199929
311432
B2
1.05
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.16
1.16
1.14
1.09
Table B44. AISC 360 Frame Stability (Effective Length Method), 16Story SMF RSA (kip, inch)
H b
2.83
3.88
4.75
4.89
4.56
4.71
4.83
4.73
4.45
4.34
4.17
3.78
3.25
2.94
2.50
2.16
Pstory a
1296
2893
4496
6105
7728
9358
10993
12634
14282
15936
17595
19260
20939
22627
24328
26067
H
390.9
812.9
1182.8
1503.8
1781.0
2015.7
2211.3
2371.3
2499.2
2598.5
2672.7
2725.3
2760.2
2780.8
2790.8
2794.1
L
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
216
Rm
0.954
0.954
0.954
0.954
0.954
0.954
0.954
0.954
0.954
0.954
0.954
0.954
0.954
0.954
0.954
0.954
Pe story
22100
33576
39868
49305
62558
68592
73302
80383
90046
95899
102632
115496
136170
151337
178505
267012
B2
1.06
1.09
1.13
1.14
1.14
1.16
1.18
1.19
1.19
1.20
1.21
1.20
1.18
1.18
1.16
1.11
K2x (note a)
Exterior
2.23
2.44
2.54
2.42
K2x (note a)
Interior
2.98
3.26
3.37
3.21
RSA
K2x (note a)
K2x (note a)
Exterior
Interior
2.46
3.08
2.99
3.74
3.08
3.86
2.58
3.23
B27
K2x (note a)
Exterior
2.18
2.12
2.09
2.04
2.04
1.99
2.09
2.03
ELF
K2x (note a)
Interior
2.75
2.67
2.80
2.74
2.88
2.81
3.21
3.11
K2x (note a)
Exterior
2.59
2.61
2.26
2.16
2.20
2.27
2.44
2.24
RSA
K2x (note a)
Interior
2.74
2.76
3.21
3.08
3.38
3.48
3.82
3.51
K2x (note a)
Exterior
3.09
3.33
2.66
2.46
2.29
2.20
2.05
2.01
1.97
2.07
2.03
1.97
2.08
2.07
2.69
2.62
K2x (note a)
Interior
2.46
2.65
2.80
2.59
2.52
2.43
2.49
2.43
2.70
2.84
3.21
3.12
3.21
3.20
3.25
3.17
RSA
K2x (note a)
K2x (note a)
Exterior
Interior
2.51
2.64
2.41
2.53
2.11
2.73
2.02
2.61
2.17
2.66
2.29
2.81
2.11
2.90
2.05
2.81
2.21
2.89
2.32
3.04
2.22
3.43
2.09
3.22
2.88
3.11
3.79
4.09
3.48
4.20
2.62
3.17
B28
B.4
The examples presented detail the strength design calculations for the following members and components
of each SFRS for the RSAdesigned 8story buildings (MC8):
Example calculations for components of the SCBF can be found in Volume 2 (Harris and Speicher 2015).
W18119
W18143
W18192
W18192
W18175
W18106
W1871
W1855
After several design and analysis iterations, the final member sizes are shown in Figure B19.
B29
B.4.1.2.1
Flexural Demand
The flexural demand from the controlling load combination from ASCE 7 at the center of the RBS is:
M u 5696 kipin. = 475 kipft.
B.4.1.2.2
Flexural Strength
The controlling beam strength is at the center of the RBS (a = 4.75 in., b = 16 in., and c = 2.25 in.see
AISC 358). Composite action is neglected in the design for positive moment strength. The effective plastic
modulus at the center of the RBS is:
The beam is braced along its length per AISC 360 and AISC 341.
Lb L p 1.76ry
E
E
40.4ry 0.086ry
45.3ry (note that AISC 360 is more strict)
Fye
Fye
B30
B.4.1.2.3
The moment capacity at the face of the column needs to be verified (the expected moment capacity at the
face of the column needs to be greater than the probable maximum moment at the center of the fully yielded
and strain hardened RBS projected to the face of the column).
The expected moment capacity at the column face is:
M pe Z b R y Fy 224 1.1 50 12320 kipin. (AISC 358 Equation 5.87)
The moment at the column face resulting from the Mpr at the RBS is:
0.0829 12.75
wS 2
VRBS S h h 9057 70.7 12.75
9962 kipin.
2
2
2
M f M pr
VRBS
70.7 kips
L
2
314.3
2
where VRBS is the probable shear force at the center of the RBS.
W18175
B31
B.4.1.3.1
The demands in the column from the controlling load combinations from ASCE 7 are presented in Table
B48maximum/minimum values for an individual action displayed with bolded text.
Table B48. Controlling Load Combinations (kips, feet)
LC Index
163
117
134
66
107
173
Pu,A
123.90
757.01
212.09
676.27
449.00
433.82
Pu,B
123.90
753.18
209.62
672.98
445.17
431.90
Mu,A,x
672.20
689.41
685.32
702.53
666.02
683.23
Mu,B,x
168.81
137.83
140.51
171.49
179.93
148.95
Max/Min Action
Pu,min
Pu,max
Mu,A,min
Mu,A,max
Mu,B,min
Mu,B,max
Pr = 757 kips and Mr,x = 690 kipft.from the load combination selected for this example (#117 in Table
B48).
SMF column design is also governed by the capacity design requirements specified in AISC 341 D1.4a
(2), which permits flexural forces resulting from seismic drift of the frame to be neglected in this case.
Axial Strength
The axial compression strength of the column is calculated per AISC 360 E3.
Pn Ag Fcr
Flexural Buckling about the yaxis (outofplane):
K y Ly
Fy
ry
Fe , y
1.0 216
2.76
2E
K y Ly
r
y
F
Fcr 0.658 y
50
3.25 4.71
29000
2 29000
1.0 216
2.76
Fe , y
46.7 ksi
F 32.0 ksi
Fy
E
2.59 216
8.20
2E
K x Lx
rx
F
Fcr 0.658 y
50
2.83 4.71
29000
2 29000
2.59 216
8.20
Fe , x
61.5 ksi
F 35.6 ksi
Flexural Strength
0.7Fy S x Lb L p / Lr L p
M p
46.8
9.7
12
b M n b M p 0.9
1658 kipft. = 17900 kipin.
B.4.1.3.4
Strength Check
(a) Inplane stability (AISC 360 Equation H11a) using LC #117see Table B48
Pr
757
0.46
Pn , x 1643
For Pr / Pn,x 0.2, the interaction equation in AISC 360 H1.1 is:
Pu
8 M u,x
c Pn , x 9 b M n , x
757 8 8273
0.46 0.41 0.87 1.0
1643
9
17900
B33
(b) Outofplane stability (AISC 360 Equation H12) using LC #117see Table B48
P
Pr
757
u
0.51
Pcy c Pn , y 1475
P
Pu
1.5 0.5 u
c Pn, y
c Pn, y
M u,x
Cbb M n,LTB, x
8273
0.511.5 0.5 0.51
1.99(0.9) 18576
(c) Amplified seismic load with system overstrength factor from ASCE 7
Pr,o
c Pn, y
1065
0.72 1.0
1475
B.4.1.4.1
Shear Demand
The panel zone demand is determined using the projected probable moment strength at the center of the
RBS (AISC 341 E3.6e (1) states expected moments; however, most design examples use the probable
moment because of prequalification testing).
M pr C pr R y Fy Z RBS 1.15 1.1 50 143.16 9057 kipin = 755 kipft.
Vu , PZ
M1 f ,L
tf1
M f ,R
t f 2
Vc
B34
Vc
M f ,L M f ,R
0 9956
2 2
2 2
Vu , PZ 0
9956
Mf,R is the moment from the right beam and Mf,L = 0 since the panel zone is part of a onesided
beamtocolumn connection.
Alternatively, the shear demand can be approximated with ASCE 41 5.4.2.4.2.
VPZ
B.4.1.4.2
M
db
L dc h
Shear Strength
3bcf tcf 2
3bcf tcf 2
Vn 0.60Fy dc tw 1
Vy 1
db d c tw
db d c tw
3 11.4 1.59
534(1.2) 642 kips
Vn Vy 1
24.1 20.0 0.89
B.4.1.4.3
Strength Check
Vn
375
0.58 1.0 (using probable moment)
1.0 642
Also,
Vr 375
Therefore, the panel zone is not expected to yield at the probable moment.
B35
M
M
pc
pb
AISC 341 E3.4a permits the use of a straight line interaction equation to determine the column flexural
strength, Mpc (which is a lowerbound nominal plastic section strength). This moment strength is projected
to the beam centerline assuming that the shear in column, Vc, is in equilibrium with Mpc:
pc
Pr ,top ht
Pr ,bot hb
Z x ,top Fy
Z x ,bot Fy
Ag h db
Ag h db
Because this is the base column, the assumption that the inflection point occurs at midheight of the first
story is likely invalid due to the fixity of the columntobase connection. A more accurate estimate can be
obtained by a nonlinear static analysis or by taking moments from the elastic analysis. Using Load
Combination #117see Table B48, the point of inflection, z, from the base is approximately:
M bot
z
M bot M top
and
hb 216
689
L
192 158 in.
689 138
24.1
158 46 in.
2
pc
907
84
1065
46
398 50
398 50
30790 kipin.
51.3 46 24.1 2
51.3 84 24.1 2
The sum of the projections of the expected flexural strengths of the beams is:
pb
M pr M uv
Mpr is the sum of the probable moments produced at each RBS centerline determined previously. Muv is
the sum of the moments produced at the column centerline by the shear at the plastic hinges:
B36
VRBS
70.7 kips
L
2
314.3
2
16 20
b d
uv
pb
Therefore,
M
M
pc
pb
30790
2.9 1.0
10665
The previous calculations intend to protect the column against from hinging but does not also check the
column against instability at the probable strength of the beamtocolumn connection(s). The low ratio
result suggests that column instability will not be a concern.
Assuming adequate lateral bracing at the ends of the columns, using AISC 360 Equation H12 for outof
plane buckling with inplane moments:
Pr,o
P
1.5 0.5 u
Pn, y
Pn, y
M u,x
Cb M n, LTB, x
M pc , x Cb M n,LTB, x 1
1.0
Pr,o
Pr,o
1.5 0.5
Pn, y
Pn, y
1065
1065
1.99(18576) 1
1.5 0.5
1638
1638
Pr,o
Pn, x
8 M pc , x
1.0 (Pn,x uses KxLx = Lx)
9 M n, x
Pr ,o
9
M pc , x M n , x 1
8
Pn , x
9 1065
(19900) 1
9323 kipin. = 777 kipft. governs
8 1825
Both values for Mpc associated with the axis of buckling above must be less than Mpc computed from the
chosen yield surface, which can be approximated using AISC 360 Equation H11a.
B37
Pr,o
Py
8 M pc , x
1.0
9 M p ,
x
9 Pr ,o
M pc , x M p , x 1
8
Py
9
1065
(19900) 1
13092 kipin. = 1092 kipft.
8 51.3(50)
M
M
pc
pb
pc
pb
84
46
12637
9323
27380 kipin.
84 24.1 2
46 24.1 2
10665 kipin.
27380
2.6 1.0
10665
The above calculations assume that a plastic hinge formed at the column base does not influence the
interaction curves and conservatively assumes Kx for inplane buckling is invariant to that used for design
(which conservatively encompasses all load combinations and load patterns).
B38
Appendix C
The examples presented in this appendix detail the assessment calculations for the following primary
members and connections of each SFRS for the RSAdesigned 8story buildings (MC8):
Linear assessment example calculations are provided in C.1, and examples for the nonlinear assessment
example calculations are provided in C.2.
C.1
The following example provides guidance to how the linear assessment calculations were conducted in
this study. Linear assessment of the selected components is performed for the following criteria:
L = 30 ft. (centerline)
A992 Steel: Fy,LB = Fy = 50 ksi, Fye = 55 ksi, E = 29000 ksi, G = 11154 ksi
Flexural Demand
C.1.1.1.1
Frame Beam
Flexural actions in the beam are deformationcontrolled (assuming small axial loads); therefore,
M UD M G M E (ASCE 41 3.4.2.1.1)
Based on the controlling load combination, the moment at the center of each RBS is:
MUD,L = 2336 kipft. left
C.1.1.1.2
FR Connection
Based on the controlling load combination, the moment at the face of each column is:
MUD,L = 2533 kipft. left
Flexural Strength
C.1.1.2.1
Beam
Per ASCE 41 5.4.2.3.2.1, the flexural strength is determined from AISC 360 Chapter F. Because this is
new construction designed in accordance with AISC 360 and AISC 341, the beam is braced sufficiently to
develop its plastic moment strength.
Lb Lp 1.76ry
E
E
40.4ry 0.086ry
45.3ry (note that AISC 360 is more strict)
Fye
Fye
The controlling beam strength is at the center of the RBS (a = 4.75 in., b = 16 in., and c = 2.25 in., see AISC
358). The effective plastic modulus at the center of the RBS is:
C.1.1.2.2
Per ASCE 41 5.4.2.44, QCE shall be taken as the capacity of the critical connection component. The
acceptance criteria in ASCE 41 for beamtocolumn connections are applicable for demands at the face of
the column. Thus, QCE is taken as the expected flexural strength of the RBS projected to the column face.
The corresponding moment strength at the face of the column is:
C2
M CE
Lclear
314
7876
= 8512 kipin. = 709 kipft.
M f M pe
16
b
Lclear 2 a 2
314 2 4.75 2
Beam
The mfactor for the RBS defined as a beam (primary) is taken from ASCE 41 Table 55.
bf
2t f
5.86
52
Fye
=7.01
h
418
45.9
56.4
tw
Fye
m 8
C.1.1.3.2
The initial mfactor for the RBS beamtocolumn connection (primary) is taken from ASCE 41 Table 55.
tcf 1.59 in. and tcp 0.5 in. at both connections, bbf 9.02 in. and tbf 0.77 in.
bbf
7
tcf
bbf
5.2
tbf
2
C3
VPZ
M
d
y ,beam
L h
db
L dc h
where My,beam is the moment at the face of the column, projected from the flexural yield strength of the
critical connection component (i.e, SFye).
The reduced moment of inertia, Ix, and the elastic section modulus, Sx, at the center of the RBS are:
1
I x I x ct f 4t f 2 6dt f 3d 2 1427 in.4
3
S x 2I x d 118 in.3
The moment at the column face isneglecting small gravity load contributions:
Lclear
M f M y ,beam M y , RBS
7040 kipin. = 587 kipft.
Lclear 2 a b 2
168 216
192 in.
2
VPZ , R
271 kips
24.1 360 20 192
7040 7040
24.1
541 kips
360
20 192
PZ
Vy 0.50 0.6
L
PZ
Vy 0.91 0.9
R
PZ 0.80 for both connections since the ratios are outside the range of 0.6 VPZ Vy 0.9 .
14.1 10
d 24.1
LD 1.4 0.04
Lc
340
1.4 0.04
0.836
d
24
(The clear spantodepth ratio is used differently for nonlinear analysis procedures.)
Beam Web and Flange Slenderness Modifier (ASCE 41 5.4.2.4.24.4)
ASCE 41 is not clear if these compactness requirements are applicable at the column face or at the critical
connection component (i.e., center of RBS). It is assumed here that the measurements are applicable at the
face of the column because such an applicability provides the largest element slenderness values.
bf
2t f
5.86
52
Fye
7.01
h
418
45.9
56.4
tw
Fye
SL 1.0
Therefore, the adjusted mfactors for the left and right beamtocolumn connection are:
Beam
The acceptance criteria check for the beam (done at the center of the RBS) is:
DCRN , L
M UD
2336
DCR
0.45 1.0
m
m M CE 8 656
C5
DCRN , R
M UD
DCR
2130
0.41 1.0
m
m M CE 8 656
The left and right beam hinges satisfy the CP BPL acceptance criteria at the BSE2 EHL.
C.1.1.4.2
The acceptance criteria check for the beamtocolumn connection (done at the face of the column) is:
DCRN , L
M UD
DCR
2533
0.98 1.0
m
m M CE 3.63 656 1.08
DCRN , R
M UD
DCR
2326
0.90 1.0
m
m M CE 3.63 709
QCLc QCEb
50
QCLc M p 1027 934 kipft.
55
SMF Column
The first story column (No. 1) at the intersection of grid lines 1 and B is selected for this example (see
circled element in Figure B19):
W18175
A992 Steel: Fy,LB = Fy = 50 ksi, Fye = 55 ksi, E = 29000 ksi, G = 11154 ksi
C6
Axial Demand
The axial force in the column is forcecontrolled by default per ASCE 41:
PUF PG
PE
C1C2 J
(ASCE 41 3.4.2.1.2)
where
C1 = 1.0 (T > 1.0 sec.) per ASCE 41 3.3.1.3.1
C2 = 1.0 (T > 0.7 sec.) per ASCE 41 3.3.1.3.1
min DCR
J max
2.05 (min(DCR) roof beam = 0.832.47 = 2.05) (ASCE 41 3.4.2.1.2)
2.0
where DCR is the demandtocapacity ratio of any component in the load path delivering force to the
column. For the column in this example, this is interpreted to be all beamtocolumn connection DCRs on
the column line at and above the second floor. The minimum value of 2.0 allowed in ASCE 41 was selected
because the building is considered to be in a zone with a high level of seismicity.
Based on the controlling load combination, the demand on the column is:
869
926 kips
1.0 1.0 2.05
Axial Strength
In accordance with ASCE 41 5.4.2.4.2, the lowerbound compression strength is determined as Pn from
AISC 360 E3 using c = 1 and Fy = Fy,LB = 50 ksi. Flexural buckling about the minor axis (yaxis) governs.
Fy , LB
ry
1.0 216
2.76
50
3.25 4.71
29000
C7
Fe , y
2E
K y Ly
ry
F
Fcr , y 0.658 y
2 29000
1.0 216
2.76
Fe
46.7 ksi
F 32.0 ksi
y
PUF ,G
PCL
P
499
0.30 UF 0.20 m is reduced for PM interaction
1639
PCL
PUF
926
FEMA 273
Flexural Demand
The forcecontrolled flexure in the column is:
M UF M G
ME
C1C2 J
(ASCE 41 3.4.2.1.2)
Based on the controlling load combination, the moment at the bottom of the column is:
M UF 10
47052
23087 kipin. = 1924 kipft.
1.0 1.0 2.05
Flexural Strength
Per ASCE 4 Section 5.4.6.4.3.2.2, the lowerbound flexural strength, MCL, is determined as Mn from AISC
360 F1 and F2 using b = 1.0 and Fy = Fy,LB = 50 ksi.
M CL M n Cb M p
0.7Fy , LB S x Lb L p / Lr L p M p
12
46.8 9.7
C8
M CL M p 1658 kipft.
Acceptance Criteria Check
The column acceptance criteria check is:
DCRN
PUF M UF
926 1924
(ASCE 41 5.4.2.4)
Therefore, the column fails to satisfy the CP BPL acceptance criteria at the BSE2 EHL. However, it is
uncertain what physical phenomenon is represented by this resultdoes a plastic hinge form in the column
or does the column buckle outofplane.
The panel zone demand is obtained from summing the beam moments framing into the panel zone and then
subtracting out the associated column sheargravity loads are ignored for simplicity:
VUD
M1
M2
29835
M1 is the moment from the right beam and M2 = 0 because this panel zone is part of a onesided beamto
column connection.
Shear Strength
The panel zone strength is calculated from ASCE 41 Equation 55:
VCE Vye 0.55Fyetcw dc 538 kips (recall that no doubler plates are used in this study)
Acceptance Criteria
The mfactor is taken from ASCE 41 Table 55:
C9
m = 11
Acceptance Criteria Check
The panel zone acceptance criteria check is:
DCRN
V
DCR
1099
UD
0.19 1.0
m mVCE 11 538
Therefore, the panel zone satisfies the CP BPL acceptance criteria at the BSE2 EHL.
C.2
The following example provides guidance to how the nonlinear assessment calculations were conducted
in this study. Nonlinear assessment of the selected components is performed for the following criteria:
SMF Beam
The second floor beam along grid line 1 between grid lines B and C is selected for this example (see circled
element in Figure B19).
The demands for the SMF beam are taken from the median value of the record set from the NDP.
Deformation Demand
Total curvature demand (plastic plus elastic) in the beamtocolumn connection (measured at the center of
the RBS) is obtained directly from the momentcurvature response of the beam hinge in the PERFORM
3D model. The total curvature demand for the left connections is:
UD , L 0.02842 in./in.
Additionally, the moment demand is:
M UD , L 9056 kipin.
C10
Acceptance Criteria
The acceptance criteria in terms of plastic rotation are given in ASCE 41, Table 56. To compare against
the momentcurvature results coming from PERFORM3D, the plastic rotation is converted to total
curvature:
plastic
total , AC
p , AC
lp
elastic
y pe
M pe
EI RBS
MUD M pe
EI
RBS
pe
where lp is the plastic hinge length (taken as the length of the RBS), is the total FR connection modifier
considering the items described below, and is the modifier that shifts the acceptance criteria from the face
of the column to the centerline of the RBS. Per ASCE 41 Table 56, the initial plastic rotation acceptance
criterion for a primary member with a RBS connection is:
to the following acceptance criteria modifications in ASCE 41 5.4.2.4.3 (each modifier is taken as here).
PZ 0.80 for both connections since the ratio is outside the range of 0.6 VPZ Vy 0.9 .
Clear SpantoDepth Modifier (ASCE 41 5.4.2.4.24.3)
Lc 340
14.1 8
d
24.1
C11
LD 1.0
Beam Web and Flange Slenderness Modifier (ASCE 41 5.4.2.44.4)
Refer to the linear analysis calculations above.
SL 1.0
Therefore, the adjusted mfactors for the left and right beamtocolumn connections are:
Lclear 28.32
1.081
L
26.19
where L is the distance between RBS centerlines. This can be determined by using a simple cantilever
model to convert rotation to the RBS to keep the same tip displacement.
0.0428
0.002313 in/in.
16
p 0.8 1.081
7874
0.000194 in/in.
29000 1397
pe
9056 7874
0.0000292 in/in.
29000 1397
DCRN , L
plastic elastic
y pe p , AC
0.02842
11.1 1.0
1.0 0.002535
C12
The left beamtocolumn connection does not satisfy the CP BPL acceptance criteria at the BSE2 EHL.
SMF Column
The first story column (No. 1) at the intersection of grid lines 1 and B is selected for this example (see
circled element in Figure B19):
W18175
hsx = 18 ft.(Lb of the column is conservatively taken as hsx)
A992 Steel: Fy,LB = Fy = 50 ksi, Fye = 55 ksi, E = 29000 ksi, G = 11154 ksi
Given that the axialmoment demand changes for each earthquake record when doing the NDP, the
demands for this example are taken from the NSP at the target displacement.
Axial Demand
The compressive axial load in the column at the target displacement is:
P 780.1 kips
Axial Strength
In accordance with ASCE 41 5.4.2.4.2, the lowerbound compression strength is determined as Pn from
AISC 360 E3 using c = 1 and Fy = Fy,LB = 50 ksi. Flexural buckling about the minor axis (yaxis) governs.
PCL Pn, y 51.3(32.0) 1639 kips refer to the linear analysis calculations above
P 780.1
UD 0.00123 in./in.
Acceptance Criteria
The acceptance criteria in terms of plastic rotation are given in ASCE 41 Table 56. To compare against
the momentcurvature results coming from PERFORM3D, the plastic rotation is converted to total
curvature:
C13
P
0.48 0.2
PCL
bf
2t f
3.58
52
Fye
=7.01
h
260
18.0
35.1
tw
Fye
5 P
p, AC 111
y 2.27 y
3 PCL
From ASCE 41 Equation 52:
Pye Fye A 55 51.3 2822 kips
@ P 0
y
ZFyelc
P
780.1
y
1
0.00788 1
0.00570 rad.
2822
6EI c Pye
However, to be consistent with the PM interaction curve used to model the plastic hinge response, y, is
taken as:
P
y y @ P0 1 0.007881.1 1 0.2761.5 0.00683 rad. (a 20% increase from ASCE 41)
P
ye
Therefore:
total , AC
elastic
p , AC
y pe
y @ P0
lp
M pe
EI
21890
0.000219 in./in.
29000 3450
C14
P
M CE 1.18 1
M 1.18 1 0.276 21890 18701 kipin
Pye pe
(ASCE 41 Eq 54)
However, ASCE 41 Equation 54 is impossible to implement in PERFORM3D. Thus to be consistent with
the PM interaction curve used to model the plastic hinge response, the following is used:
M CE
P
M pe 1
21890 1.1 1 0.2761.5 18984 kipin.
P
ye
M CE
18984
0.000190 in./in.
EI
29000 3450
pe
(see PERFORM3D)
M t M CE 20205 18984
0.0000122 in./in.
EI
29000 3450
Therefore,
total , AC
plastic
elastic
0.0155
DCRN
plastic elastic
y pe p , AC
0.00123
1.26 1.0
1.0 0.000978
Therefore, the column fails to satisfy CP BPL acceptance criteria at the BSE2 EHLfor the NSP.
The demands for the panel zone are taken from the NSP at the target displacement.
C15
Deformation Demand
The panel zone demand taken as the total shear deformation (plastic plus elastic) is obtained directly from
the shearshear strain response of the shear hinge in the PERFORM3D model. The total shear strain
demand is:
UD 0.00187 rad.
Acceptance Criteria
The acceptance criteria in terms of plastic shear angle are given in ASCE 41 Table 56. To compare against
the strain results coming from PERFORM3D, the plastic shear angle is converted to total shear angle:
p, AC 11 y rad.
where y is the angular shear deformation of the panel zone.
y y
y
G
0.55 Fye
G
0.55 55
11154
0.00271 rad.
p , AC 11 0.00271 0.0298
UD
0.00187
0.057 1.0
AC 0.0325
Therefore, the panel zone satisfies the CP BPL acceptance criteria at the BSE2 EHLfor the NSP.
C16
Appendix D
References
AISC (1989). Specification for Structural Steel Buildings: Allowable Stress Design and Plastic Design.
American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL.
AISC (1999). WideFlange Column Stiffening at Moment Connections Design Guide 13. American
Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL.
AISC (2002). Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings ANSI/AISC 34102. American Institute
of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL.
AISC (2005). Specification for Structural Steel Buildings ANSI/AISC 36005. American Institute of Steel
Construction, Chicago, IL.
AISC (2010a). Specification for Structural Steel Buildings ANSI/AISC 36010. American Institute of
Steel Construction, Chicago, IL.
AISC (2010b). Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings ANSI/AISC 34110. American Institute
of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL.
AISC (2010c). Prequalified Connections for Special and Intermediate Steel Moment Frames for Seismic
Applications ANSI/AISC 35810. American Institute of Steel Construction, Construction, Chicago, IL.
AISC (2013). Stability Design of Steel Buildings Design Guide 28. American Institute of Steel
Construction, Chicago, IL.
ASCE (2005). Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures ASCE/SEI 705. American
Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
ASCE (2006). Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings ASCE/SEI 4106. American Society of Civil
Engineers, Reston, VA.
ASCE (2010). Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures ASCE/SEI 710. American
Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
ASCE (2014). Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings ASCE/SEI 4113. American Society
of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
ASCE (2016). Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures ASCE/SEI 716. American
Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA. In Progress.
D1
CBSC (2010) California Code of Regulations, Part 2 California Building Standards Code Title 24.
California Building Standards Commission, Sacramento, California.
CSI (2011a). ETABS (Version 9.7.4) [Computer Software]. Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley, CA.
CSI (2011b). PERFORM3D (Version 5.0) [Computer Software]. Computers and Structures, Inc.,
Berkeley, CA.
CSI (2011c). Components and Elements for PERFORM3D and PERFORMCOLLAPSE (Version 5.0).
Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley, CA.
CSI (2011d). User Guide PERFORM3D (Version 5.0). Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley, CA.
Engelhardt, M.D., Winneberger, T., Zekany, A.J., and Potyraj, T.J. (1998). Experimental Investigation of
Dogbone Moment Connections. Engineering Journal, AISC, 4th Quarter, pp. 128139.
FEMA (1997). NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings FEMA 273. Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
FEMA (2000a). Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment Frame Buildings FEMA
350. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
FEMA (2000b). Recommended Seismic Evaluation and Upgrade Criteria for Existing Welded Steel
Moment Frame Buildings FEMA 351. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
FEMA (2000c). State of the Art Report on Connection Performance FEMA 355D. Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
FEMA (2000d). State of the Art Report on Performance Prediction and Evaluation FEMA 355F. Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
FEMA (2000e). Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings FEMA 356.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
FEMA (2000f). Global Topics Report on the Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation
of Buildings FEMA 357. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
FEMA (2005). Improvements of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures FEMA 440. Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
FEMA (2009a). Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors FEMA P695. Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
FEMA (2009b). NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures
FEMA P750. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
D2
FEMA (2009c). Effects of Strength and Stiffness Degradation on Seismic Response FEMA P440A.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
FEMA (2012). Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings FEMA P58. Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
FEMA (2015). NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures. Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. In Progress.
GSA (2012). Facilities Standards for the Public Buildings Service PBSP100. U.S. General Services
Administration, Washington, D.C.
Harris, J.L. and Speicher, M.S. (2015). Assessment of First Generation PerformanceBased Design
Methods for New Steel Buildings, Volume 2: Special Concentrically Braced Frames NIST TN 18632.
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.
Haselton, C.B., Kircher, C.A., and Liel, A.B. (2009). Concept Paper on Utilizing the FEMA P695 (ATC
63) Ground Motion Spectral Shape Guidelines to Adjust the Target Displacement in the ASCE/SEI 41
Nonlinear Static Procedure Proc.: ATC & SEI 2009 Conference on Improving the Seismic Performance
of Existing Buildings and Other Structures, San Francisco, CA Dec. 911, 2009.
ICC (2012a). International Existing Building Code (IEBC). International Code Council, Washington, DC.
ICC (2012b). International Building Code (IBC). International Code Council, Washington, DC.
Krawinkler, H., Bertero, V.V., and Popov, E.P. (1971). Inelastic Behavior of Steel BeamtoColumn
Subassemblages Report No. UCB/EERC71/07. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
California, Berkeley, CA, October 1971.
Krawinkler, H. (1978). Shear in Beam Column Joints in Seismic Design of Steel Frames. Engineering
Journal, AISC, 3rd Quarter, pp. 8291.
Lee, D., Cotton, S.C., Dexter, R.J., Hajjar, J.F., Ye, Y. and Ojard, S.D. (2002). Column Stiffener Detailing
and Panel Zone Behavior of Steel Moment Frame Connections Report No. ST013.2. Dept. of Civil
Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 2002.
NIBS (2013). National PerformanceBased Design Guide for Buildings. National Institute of Building
Sciences, Washington, D.C.
NIST (2009a). Research Required to Support Full Implementation of PerformanceBased Seismic Design
NIST GCR 099172. Produced by the Building Seismic Safety Council for the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.
NIST (2009b). Seismic Design of Steel Special Moment Frames: A Guide for Practicing Engineers, NEHRP
Seismic Design Technical Brief No. 2 NIST GCR 099173. Produced by the NEHRP Consultants Joint
D3
Venture, a partnership of the Applied Technology Council and the Consortium of Universities for Research
in Earthquake Engineering, for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.
NIST (2010a). Nonlinear Structural Analysis for Seismic Design: A Guide for Practicing Engineers,
NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief No. 4 NIST GCR 109175. Produced by the NEHRP
Consultants Joint Venture, a partnership of the Applied Technology Council and the Consortium of
Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering, for the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.
NIST (2010b). Evaluation of the FEMA P695 Methodology for Quantification of Building Seismic
Performance Factors NIST GCR 109178. Produced by the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture, a
partnership of the Applied Technology Council and the Consortium of Universities for Research in
Earthquake Engineering, for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.
NIST (2010c). Applicability of Nonlinear MultiDegreeofFreedom Modeling for Design NIST GCR 10
9179. Produced by the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture, a partnership of the Applied Technology
Council and the Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering, for the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.
NIST (2011a). Standards of Seismic Safety for Existing Federally Owned and Leased Buildings: ICSSC
Recommended Practice 8 (RP 8) NIST GCR 1191712. Produced by the Building Seismic Safety Council
of the National Institute of Buildings Sciences for the National Institute of Standards and Technology,
Gaithersburg, MD.
NIST (2011b). Seismic Design of Composite Steel Deck and Concretefilled Diaphragms: A Guide for
Practicing Engineers, NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief No. 5 NIST GCR 1191710. Produced
by the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture, a partnership of the Applied Technology Council and the
Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering, for the National Institute of Standards
and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.
NIST (2011c). Research Plan for the Study of Seismic Behavior and Design of Deep, Slender WideFlange
Structural Steel BeamColumn Members NIST GCR 1191713. Produced by the NEHRP Consultants
Joint Venture, a partnership of the Applied Technology Council and the Consortium of Universities for
Research in Earthquake Engineering, for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg,
MD.
NIST (2011d). Selecting and Scaling Earthquake Ground Motions for Performing ResponseHistory
Analyses NIST GCR 1191715. Produced by the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture, a partnership of the
Applied Technology Council and the Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering,
for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.
NIST (2012). Tentative Framework for Development of Advanced Seismic Design Criteria for New
Buildings NIST GCR 1291720. Produced by the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture, a partnership of
D4
the Applied Technology Council and the Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake
Engineering, for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.
NIST (2013). Seismic Design of Steel Special Concentrically Braced Frame Systems: A Guide for
Practicing Engineers, NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief No. 8 NIST GCR 1391724. Produced
by the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture, a partnership of the Applied Technology Council and the
Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering, for the National Institute of Standards
and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.
Paret, T.F., Searer, G.R., and Freeman, S.A. (2011). ASCE 31 and 41: Apocalypse Now. Proc.: Structures
Congress 2011, Las Vegas, NV, April 1416, 2011.
Pekelnicky, R. and Poland, C. (2012). ASCE 4113: Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit Rehabilitation of
Existing Buildings. Proc.: 2012 SEAOCSEANM Convention, Santa Fe, NM, Sept. 1215, 2012.
SEAONC (2010) Perspectives on ASCE 41 for Seismic Rehabilitation of Building Survey by the
Structural Engineers Association of Northern California. Structures Magazine, Oct. 2010.
ToranzoDianderas, L.A. (2009). Evaluation of the ASCE 41 Linear Elastic Procedure for Seismic Retrofit
of Existing Structures: Pros and Cons of the Method. Proc.: ATC & SEI 2009 Conference on Improving
the Seismic Performance of Existing Buildings and Other Structures, San Francisco, CA Dec. 911, 2009.
Troup, E. (1999). Effective C o n t r a c t a n d Shop Drawings f o r S t r u c t u r a l S t e e l . Proc.: North American
Steel Construction Conference, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, May 1921, 1999.
White, D.W. and Hajjar, J.F. (1997). Design of Steel Frames without Consideration of Effective Length.
Engineering Structures, Vol. 19(10), pp. 797810.
D5